Grammer, punctyooation, speling an all that Maggi Dawn is having a. Rant about - punctuation! On her blog.
Language and linguistics are a bit of a passion of mine. In fact, it is one of the few subjects I can get really heated about. Pardon me: It is one of the few subjects about which I can really get heated. (As Winston Churchill said, ending a sentence with a preposition is an aberration "up with which we shall not put!")
Ironically, I seem to have gained a reputation on some forums for being a bit of a stickler for punctuation and grammar, when in actual fact all my rants are against the sticklers, the "language mavens", as Steven Pinker calls them, the ones who regularly poke their noses into other people's language and see it as a moral duty to see that everyone is using "proper English". I might just add I haven't established whether Maggi Dawn quite belongs into that category, by the way.
Anyway, I wanted to republish a discussion I had with a friend on this very subject a few months ago. I'll call him Bert. Bert began:
"Okay, hi everyone. I'm Bert and I'm a stickler. I have a problem with being particular about proper use of the English language."
What? No applause? Well then, I withdraw my apology, you'll get it now!
Alright, a bit of a joke there, but speaking seriously, the massive mis-use of many aspects of the English language both confuses and annoys me. Ignoring the atrocious language use on many internet forums, chat rooms and messenger programs, the poor grasp many people have on grammar and proper word usage is, well, a bit depressing.
For many, the correct use of apostophes, commas, hyphens and certain words is a minor subject which the couldn't care less about. Thinking about it though, I have to ask why it is people don't care. I know that English can be a very strange language at times, especially in its spelling, but the punctuation system was instituted for very practical reasons. It was designed to avoid misunderstandings and provide clarity in communication, something most people will acknowledge is very important - "Can you hear me now?"
To highlight my point, let me throw out a few examples, read them as written and then re-read them removing punctuation:
1. “RESIDENTS' REFUSE TO GO IN THE BINS".
2. “A hundred-odd members of the Conservative Party”.
3. "Job's in-box".
Without the punctuation you have a statement concerning opinions on living conditions, a reference to the peculiarities of some politicians, and a rather useful vessel holding employment opportunities.
Some "pet peeves":
"I could care less" - It's "couldn't", you "couldn't care less". Look, if what you are saying is that you don't care about something, then what you want to say is that it is not possible for you to care any less than you do. What you do not want to say is that is is possible for you to care less because that is saying that you do care about the subject.
"I'm good" - Oh, you are? That's wonderful, it's nice to know you're responsible and that you behave and do your work well. "I'm good" is more a statement of your character than your current well-being. Try using, "I'm well", or, "Fine thanks".
"Your" - A little clarification required. "Your" is a perfectly acceptable word, as long as you mean "your" and not "you're". The car might be yours, but you're wrong if you think it's "you'res".
"To" - Again, quite acceptable as long as you don't mean "too". Only use the latter is you mean "in addition" or "excessively". That is, "Your mouth might be too big, and your feet too", but for everything else use "to".
I could go on, but I'll shut up about those.
The point is, if we can agree clarity is important, why is it that most of the people reading this will either ignore it as irrelevant or consider me to have an "over the top" attitude? Could it be that many today are too lazy to pursue clarity and efficiency through learning and using an established system and that they would rather just "fly by the seat of their pants" hoping they get it right? If so, why wouldn't they correct that? Is it that the prevailing attitude says that proper usage just really isn't that important? Are there any out there who would just admit that they are lazy but that it's okay?
Not being able to properly use one's native language properly, excepting for reasons of below average intelligence or other medical conditions, is really a sign of laziness and an embarrasment to that person. It shows sloppiness and it has been shown that someone with a better vocabulary and grasp on their language will simply do better in life. People want to hire, and will more easily respect someone who displays care and attentiveness to detail; people who have a good work and life ethic.
So, what's the story?
Of course, I couldn't resist this delicious opportunity, so I responded:
Dammit, Bert, you know exactly what to do to make me crawl out of my hole, even when I am supposed to be hard at work...!
Linguistics is a subject I am quite passionate about, and have been studying for a few years now. While I have sympathy with some of your pet-hates -- one or two of them are pet-hates of mine, too -- I generally baulk the minute someone starts talking about "proper English," "correct grammar" and the like.
Your complaint about "I could care less," for example, really reflects little more than prejudice. As a common idiom, it is readily understood, and that is what language is all about at the end of the day. It makes no more sense to dispute its grammar than it does to moan that butterflies should be called something else because they aren't made of butter.
I shall write a more substantial response when I have a few moments. Needless to say, misconceptions and myths abound in the "proper English" debate, most of them perpetrated by non-linguists.
But I shan't pre-judge you. We shall see where the conversation takes us. I could care less, anyway.
Later, when I had the time on my hands (and I bally well made sure I had the time on my hands to deal with this one!), I continued:
A disclaimer: If I begin to sound annoyingly facetious, unbearably smug, or even insultingly patronizing, it's probably because -- um -- I guess because I am annoyingly facetious, unbearably smug and insultingly patronizing! More seriously, language is a subject I care very much about, although usually in a very different way to the guardians of "correct English". Don't take it personally. (And feel free to be as annoyingly facetious when you reply -- in fact, that would make me feel better, even though I'd know you were wrong and I was right.)
"Okay, hi everyone. I'm Bert and I'm a stickler. I have a problem with being particular about proper use of the English language."
What? No applause? Well then, I withdraw my apology, you'll get it now!
Alright, a bit of a joke there, but speaking seriously, the massive mis-use of many aspects of the English language both confuses and annoys me. Ignoring the atrocious language use on many internet forums, chat rooms and messenger programs, the poor grasp many people have on grammar and proper word usage is, well, a bit depressing.
I take it the title was meant to be a joke, ie. a reference to that nebulous distinction between "disinterest" and "uninterest" that language pedants are always getting upset about?
I think you would have to make some very important distinctions here: Between written and spoken English, for example; and between formal and informal English (of the written variety). The phrase that most leaps out at me there is "proper word usage". You would need to define what makes the meaning of a word "proper". I expect, if some of your later examples are anything to go by, you would identify its "original meaning," "literal meaning," or its etymological (a word you will remember from seminary!) meaning as the "proper" meaning of a word that ought to govern its use. Let me be blunt: This is nonsense!
Any linguist will tell you that the meaning of a word is governed by its usage. If such-and-such-a-word comes to mean such-and-such-a-thing, it is no good to argue that it "really" means blah-de-blah. Did you know that the word "nice" meant "silly" at one time? And before that it simply meant "ignorant," coming from the Latin nescius. Yet very few today would argue that we should use nice to mean "ignorant," and never use it to mean "pleasant" or "good" at all.
Perhaps I am confusing you. I know I am confusing myself by this stage. Let's move swiftly on.
For many, the correct use of apostophes, commas, hyphens and certain words is a minor subject which the couldn't care less about. Thinking about it though, I have to ask why it is people don't care. I know that English can be a very strange language at times, especially in its spelling, but the punctuation system was instituted for very practical reasons. It was designed to avoid misunderstandings and provide clarity in communication, something most people will acknowledge is very important - "Can you hear me now?"
Have you been reading Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves, perchance?
I am wondering what you mean when you say that punctuation was "instituted" and "designed"? (Please let me know if that was an illicit use of the question mark.) Actually, punctuation has evolved and adapted. No one invented punctuation one day and then gave everyone a mandate to follow the rules. Several elements of "proper" punctuation are falling by the wayside at the moment, and it is not to do with sloppiness or ignorance, but is simply a fact of linguistic development. For example, the habit of having a period (full-stop) after an abbreviation is dying out. Fair game: It looks pretty ugly, and doesn't reall help us. Nowadays I would always write "CS Lewis" rather than the more time-consuming and redundant "C.S. Lewis". And who would write "U.S.A." today rather than "USA"?
If we're going to start criticizing people's punctuation, we need to be sure to distinguish between lousy punctuation that really is the result of sloppiness or ignorance, and that actually hinders communication, and punctuation that is simply moving with the times. There is no good reason to hang on to old word-meanings or old habits of grammar simply because they are "original". Language changes, and that is a fact that is very often overlooked by people who complain about bad grammar and word-usage!
To highlight my point, let me throw out a few examples, read them as written and then re-read them removing punctuation:
1. "RESIDENTS' REFUSE TO GO IN THE BINS".
2. "A hundred-odd members of the Conservative Party".
3. "Job's in-box".
Without the punctuation you have a statement concerning opinions on living conditions, a reference to the peculiarities of some politicians, and a rather useful vessel holding employment opportunities.
They all seem sensible enough to me.
Some "pet peeves":
"I could care less" - It's "couldn't", you "couldn't care less". Look, if what you are saying is that you don't care about something, then what you want to say is that it is not possible for you to care any less than you do. What you do not want to say is that is is possible for you to care less because that is saying that you do care about the subject.
How dare you tell the Americans (and Canadians, I hasten to add) what they can and can't have for idioms! Language is full of idioms, and if you think about it, they are outside the normal "rules" in many ways. Think of the idiomatically English way of describing the weather: "It's raining." To what does "it" refer? I have asked people this question, and no one seems to know. Someone suggested "it" is the sky, but "The sky is raining," is ridiculous English by anyone's standards. Any suggestions? Or shall we dispel the myth that language has to be "logical"? No one misunderstands the meaning of "I could care less," except perhaps an Englishman when he first hears it, but then, an American will likely be a little taken aback to hear the British equivalent, "I couldn't care less." But that's just a matter of different dialects, and who is in a position to proclaim one dialect superior to another? (The "proper English" experts seem to think they are, and in fact they denounce regional dialects, grammars and vocabularies all the time for not being "proper English".)
"I'm good" - Oh, you are? That's wonderful, it's nice to know you're responsible and that you behave and do your work well. "I'm good" is more a statement of your character than your current well-being. Try using, "I'm well", or, "Fine thanks".
Bert... (Shakes head.) I seriously doubt you are so linguistically inept that when someone tells you they are "good," you think they are giving you a report on their character. This criticism is simply unreasonable. "Good" means "good" in all its shades of meaning. When I tell one of my students, "That's a good drawing," they don't start to question how an inanimate object can have moral character. In fact, I can't even imagine to what hidden meaning of "good," you are appealing in order to justify that it can't be used to mean "fine" in the context of "How are you?".
"Your" - A little clarification required. "Your" is a perfectly acceptable word, as long as you mean "your" and not "you're". The car might be yours, but you're wrong if you think it's "you'res".
"To" - Again, quite acceptable as long as you don't mean "too". Only use the latter is you mean "in addition" or "excessively". That is, "Your mouth might be too big, and your feet too", but for everything else use "to".
Well, these are fair enough -- simple spelling mistakes. But note the difference between these examples and the first one you mentioned: The latter two are genuine mistakes; the former is not a mistake at all -- "good" simply means "fine" in that particular context.
I could go on, but I'll shut up about those.
No comment.
The point is, if we can agree clarity is important, why is it that most of the people reading this will either ignore it as irrelevant or consider me to have an "over the top" attitude? Could it be that many today are too lazy to pursue clarity and efficiency through learning and using an established system and that they would rather just "fly by the seat of their pants" hoping they get it right? If so, why wouldn't they correct that? Is it that the prevailing attitude says that proper usage just really isn't that important? Are there any out there who would just admit that they are lazy but that it's okay?
How [is] banning the use of "good" in reply to "How are you?" helpful to clarity?
Not being able to properly use one's native language properly, excepting for reasons of below average intelligence or other medical conditions, is really a sign of laziness and an embarrasment to that person. It shows sloppiness and it has been shown that someone with a better vocabulary and grasp on their language will simply do better in life. People want to hire, and will more easily respect someone who displays care and attentiveness to detail; people who have a good work and life ethic.
So, what's the story?
Eek! That telltale sentence beginning "Not being able to ... use one's native language properly," makes my blood boil. You'll find that people who were born in slums in Newcastle are actually experts in their native language, and as sophisticated in the grammar of their native language as the son of an aristocrat is in the grammar of his native language. True, someone growing up on a council estate in Liverpool might have problems identifying with the vocabulary of the person who grew up in a middle-class family in the Home Counties, but someone coming from the Home Counties would be soon have their "laziness" and "sloppiness" exposed if they were asked about the finer points of Scouse grammar and language usage -- all of which are just as sophisticated as that of anyone else's language. The real problem here is imperialism, and the myth that there is such a thing as "proper English," and that anyone who doesn't use it is lazy or ignorant. Conveniently, it is the middle classes who get to prescribe what this "proper English" consists of. The charge that some people cannot use their native language properly is nonsense. What they cannot do is use a language -- formal, middle-class English -- that is alien to them.
Sorry to be so scathing. What can I say? I am passionate about this subject. But let's discuss this further if you're interested. Fire away!
I thought I'd killed the discussion at that point, until Bert replied:
No sir, you didn't kill it, but at least now I know how intimidating/offputting it is to receive a rather long reply.
I've been planning to reply, but never got round to it because of the length. I suppose I could have responded in segments - in fact, I might do that now. Incidentally, the other intimidating factor in play is that I'm constantly on edge to avoid spelling and grammar errors!
Okay, I'm going to try to keep this short and to the point, and also try to keep this whole thing practical ...
You are right about the distinction between written and spoken English, and for the most part it seems I'm concerned with written English. At this point I am going to concede the argument regarding language development and 'appropriate' language usage. That is to say that over time words develop nuances and even new meanings, and these become valid in use. In addition, people are free to use 'incorrect' words, or even grammar (perhaps less so) in order to make a particular statement or add 'flavour'. For example, the use of your question mark provided an interesting conundrum. You were making a statement, yet the tone of that statement carried the request for clarification. I've come across this myself a few times, and I think for the purpose of the online dialogues, the punctuation usage is correct, or at least acceptable because it aids communication between the parties. There are things we communicate with our voices that cannot be repeated on paper, and so we use punctuation to do the job.
Whatever the 'official' position on your punctuation in this case, my point is that the punctuation was put there for a specific purpose, it aided meaning, and you knew the appropriate, accepted symbol to convey your meaning. What I have a problem with is 'incorrect' use of punctuation and words due only to sloppiness or ignorance, and which therefore works to confuse the communication process.
I accept that communication is not merely to be practical and efficient, but to add colour, depth and meaning, it is creative as well as accurate, and upon that fact stand a number of your points. Yet the argument for practicality and efficiency remains. Were someone to go to a country which used a language different to their own, I think it is only accepted that they should try to learn the new language, and not ignore the differences or argue with them. It is to a person's advantage to be able to use the established pattern of communication well, and they should not stand on their rights to be 'an individual in everything'.
Alternatively, I could return to the comparison of vocal intonation and punctuation. Punctuation, like intonation, is there to clarify meaning. A person should take care to know those patterns and use them because it helps us all to understand one another. They should not think that they can ignore the issue and then have allowances made for them.
The fact is that within English speaking nations, someone who can use the language well ('properly') and has a large vocabulary stands a greater chance of better job opportunities and success. Communication, clear communication is vital today more than ever, and practical, efficient use of it should not be ignored or dispensed with, just because it takes effort, or because it's unfair.
So, now it's me who's getting confused. So much for clear communication! I feel like I'm preaching to someone but I'm not sure who. It simply annoys me that I see public displays of poor language use, and an attitude which dismisses proper use of language as boring or irrelevant.
It could all have blown over at that point, until Bert unwisely added fuel to the fire with this article:
How Important Is The Use Of Proper Grammar?
I overheard the following conversation between two intelligent looking teenagers on the subway about two weeks ago:
“Do you got any tic-tacs cause my breath is really oniony?” asks teenager number one.
“I don't buy those things. They're full of sugar, and sugar ain't no good for your teeth,” replies teenager number two.
I don't know about you, but their use of the English language made me cringe. Double negatives, poor sentence structure, and the like made what they where saying “painful to the ears”.
Does that really matter? In this 21st century where the use of coarse language seems to be the norm and “ain't” can be found in the dictionary, is using good grammar really important? Well, if you intend to be a master in the art of conversation, good grammar is essential.
Never Judge a Book by Its Cover, But…
We've all heard the old adage “never judge a book by its cover”, but let’s face it, we all make snap judgments about every person we meet. The way someone dresses, his hairstyle, his manner, and the way he speaks can make us think highly of that person, or not so highly.
How would you judge the two teenagers I overheard in the subway? What type of people do you think they are? Would you say they are intelligent and well educated? After hearing them speak, would you want to employ them? Would you be interested in holding a lengthy conversation with them? These are very thought provoking questions aren't they? Ask yourself. What does the way I speak say about me?
English As a Second Language
Of course, we have to take into consideration that our society is a great melting pot filled with people from different countries where English is not the predominate language. Using good grammar may be much more difficult for someone whose native tongue is a different language with its own sentence structure and grammatical rules.
We should all take our hats off to (or “give props to” if you prefer a more modern expression) people who have made the effort to learn our language.
English As a First Language
However, for those of us who have been speaking English since childhood, we should want to speak properly. Using good grammar shows that we are intelligent and educated. It tells our listeners that we not only enjoy speaking, but also take pride in how we do it.
Of course we don't want to obsess about speaking properly so much that our speech sounds unnatural and snobbish, but as an artisan of good conversation, we want to use good grammar so that we can be well understood and make a good, lasting impression on all who hear us.
By Eve Carmichael
The article received my immediate disapproval: "Ignorant poppycock, linguistic imperalism -- pure bigotry, in fact, which I shall do my best to debunk when I have a few moments." And "have a few moments" I did:
I honestly don't know where to begin critiquing such a blatantly ignorant piece of pseudo-linguistic claptrap. But I'll make a valiant attempt anyhow.
Now, I could be mean and start picking on the author's own grammatical errors ("intelligent looking teenagers" really needs to become "intelligent-looking teenagers", "tic-tacs" is a brand name, and should therefore be capitalized, and Ms Carmichael meant "predominant," rather than "predominate". [Not to mention the ridiculous over-use of capital letters.] Oops, I already did.
Okay, forgive the wicked sarcasm, but few things irk me so much as nonsense-speaking "Proper English" advocates who think they can diss everyone else's language because it doesn't measure up to their mythical standards of correctness. It is little more than snobbery. Ms Carmichael takes it upon herself not only to write off other people's language as "incorrect," lacking in "pride," and symptomatic of low intelligence, but she positively encourages her readers to follow her in judging people in this way. Frankly, it's disgraceful.
To begin with, here are a few facts about language of which linguistic imperialists are apparently unaware. There is nothing inherently superior or inferior about one form of language over another. There is nothing intrinsic that makes one dialect (say, that spoken by working-class Liverpudlians) superior or inferior to another (say, that spoken by the middle classes in the Home Counties). A Liverpudlian speaks English grammar (his own variant) just as correctly as the well-bred southerner speaks his own variant. Grammar may vary, vocabulary and meaning may vary, but the intelligence and sophistication required to master either language form is the same. If your Home-Counties man were asked to learn to speak Liverpudlian English, he no doubt would find it just as much a struggle as the Liverpudlian would find learning to speak "proper English".
Okay, onto the essay.
How Important Is The Use Of Proper Grammar?
I overheard the following conversation between two intelligent looking teenagers on the subway about two weeks ago:
"Do you got any tic-tacs cause my breath is really oniony?" asks teenager number one.
Here, the obvious obstacle is the use of "do you got" for "do you have" (or "have you got"). So what? Firstly, how on earth can anyone insist that a conversation between two friends on a subway is required to follow standard English? Secondly, while the grammar of "do you got," might be foreign to some, it is perfectly "proper" to vast sections of the American, English-speaking public. Before anyone complains that the form is not logical, here's another fact about language: Language don't got to follow no "logic"! What, for example, is logical about shortening "will not" to "won't"? Surely if "do not" becomes "don't" and "should not" becomes "shouldn't," "will not" must become "willn't"? How about saying "I am," but not "amn't I?" where we can say "aren't I?" but not "are I not"? Or can we abandon the fallacy that language is "logical"?
"I don't buy those things. They're full of sugar, and sugar ain't no good for your teeth," replies teenager number two.
I don't know about you, but their use of the English language made me cringe. Double negatives, poor sentence structure, and the like made what they where saying "painful to the ears".
I have to remind myself that we're talking about two teenagers talking on a subway here. "Ain't" is just as grammatical as "isn't," the difference being that "ain't" belongs to the language of a different social group, and thus the more dominant social group gets to tell them it's "incorrect". As for double negatives, what is the problem? Does anyone struggle to comprehend the meaning of the above conversation? Is clear communication being lost? I don't speak using double negatives, and yet I have no problem at all understanding "sugar ain't no good for your teeth." Should I decry someone else whose language happens to have room for that particular grammatical form? Are they less intelligent or lacking in sophistication because the grammatical forms of their language are different to the grammatical forms I have been brought up with?
Does that really matter? In this 21st century where the use of coarse language seems to be the norm and "ain't" can be found in the dictionary, is using good grammar really important? Well, if you intend to be a master in the art of conversation, good grammar is essential.
Coarse? By what criteria can this self-appointed language guru denounce someone else's language as "coarse"? She even acknowledges that "coarse language" is "the norm" --- yet if "the norm" does not provide the rule by which we measure good communication, where on earth does this mystical standard of perfect English come from? The only way her own "proper English" ever became "proper" in the first place is because it became "the norm". Most of the language we use today was just as "coarse" when it was first used. That's how languages are formed. They did not drop out of the sky in immutable form with a warning not to be tampered with.
Never Judge a Book by Its Cover,
But…We've all heard the old adage "never judge a book by its cover", but let’s face it, we all make snap judgments about every person we meet. The way someone dresses, his hairstyle, his manner, and the way he speaks can make us think highly of that person, or not so highly.
How would you judge the two teenagers I overheard in the subway? What type of people do you think they are? Would you say they are intelligent and well educated? After hearing them speak, would you want to employ them? Would you be interested in holding a lengthy conversation with them? These are very thought provoking questions aren't they? Ask yourself. What does the way I speak say about me?
Now this is utterly incredible. Ms Carmichael now wants us to start consciously discriminating against people based on the language they speak. Quite honestly, I could care less how "good" someone's grammar is, and certainly wouldn't want to pick my conversation partners based on their ability to speak standard English. For sure, language is certainly an indicator of social status, and is frequently the basis for judgments -- yet that is unfortunate, and ought to be condemned. We have no problem accepting that what is a "monkey" for us is "un singe" for a Frenchman, or what is a "bat" for us is "die fledermaus" for a German -- yet if our fellow English-speakers happen to use "youse" for "you" (plural), they are "inferior" or speaking "incorrectly". Wrong! People may use different language forms, but "right" and "wrong" is not a concept you can apply willy-nilly simply on the grounds that x is what uneducated people speak where y is what the educated elite speak.
English As a Second Language
Of course, we have to take into consideration that our society is a great melting pot filled with people from different countries where English is not the predominate language. Using good grammar may be much more difficult for someone whose native tongue is a different language with its own sentence structure and grammatical rules.
We should all take our hats off to (or "give props to" if you prefer a more modern expression) people who have made the effort to learn our language.
English As a First Language
However, for those of us who have been speaking English since childhood, we should want to speak properly. Using good grammar shows that we are intelligent and educated. It tells our listeners that we not only enjoy speaking, but also take pride in how we do it.
Some news for Ms Carmichael -- if you have been brought up speaking English, then unless you have a mental deficiency, you are more than able to speak your own language perfectly "properly". A Liverpudlian knows quite well that she can't use "youse" as the second person singular, just as someone living a few centuries ago was instinctly aware when they should and shouldn't use "thee" or "thou" to distinguish between different forms of the second person. Again, what Ms Carmichael is really saying is that the language used by a particular social group is the only "correct" one, and anyone who does not use that same language form is not speaking English "properly".
The irony here is that if anyone were to study how the author herself talks in everyday conversation, they would find that she -- like everyone -- is just as guilty of not following the "rules" of standard English as anybody. (Studies have been done.) This is chiefly because spoken English works according to a very different set of rules to written English, a distinction she totally fails to recognize in her diatribe against these two poor youths who are simply having a conversation using perfectly the rules of grammar and syntax that their linguistic community has passed onto them.
Of course we don't want to obsess about speaking properly so much that our speech sounds unnatural and snobbish, but as an artisan of good conversation, we want to use good grammar so that we can be well understood and make a good, lasting impression on all who hear us.
A bit late to start worrying about sounding like a snob, Ms Carmichael...!
Bert was in there quickly to respond:
Nice job Dave! You presented a wonderful critique of the article and proved once again your observational powers and solid intellect. However, one thing you didn't do was acknowledge reality and common sense. Not that those two matter these days.
The fact is that if you...no, wait...let me start again. The fact is that most people who overheard the conversation between those two teenagers would indeed think them somewhat uneducated and perhaps lacking in intelligence. That may seem outrageous and grossly unfair, but why would anyone think that in the first place? I would suggest it's because the alternative is unlikely. That is, the two teenagers are not bright intellects who, having undertaken an education and studied the various forms of language, have chosen their dialect as preferable for a stylistic, or any other, reason.
What their 'dialect' suggests is that these two teenagers are individuals who have been given the opportunity to be educated but have ignored that which they have been taught, pursuing instead 'fun' activities. Either that, or they did not have the intellect to understand or retain what they have been taught. Now, far be it from me to look down on people on the grounds of their low intelligence, yet it remains that the assumption of their mental state remains the likely truth
It all revolves around attitude. Those who have a good work ethic or mature attitude will invest in their education. They will make the most of the opportunities presented them, and they will show interest in and care for what they are being given. Those who couldn't care less about their education will not invest into, but rather avoid, the work that is given to them. After all is said and done, and the various individuals have passed through certain years of life, the result is almost always that those who cared and worked are able to, and do, use the English language in the 'proper' forms we are discussing; those who did not, cannot.
The truth, Dave, is that whilst it is wrong to condemn and insult people because of their intellect, or other such reasons, most people do not make a studied decision to avoid the use of 'Standard English' and use another dialect. Instead, poor language use typically highlights underlying attitudes towards work and discipline which employers and other individuals do well to take note of.
I have nothing against variety and colour in language use, however, to ignore what appear to me to be common sense deductions seems foolhardy. Stereotypes and generalisations get a 'bad rap' in today's western society, yet they remain the basic way in which we learn. The problem with them is in their use, not their existence.
If someone wishes to choose to use a regional or other dialect in day to day life, that is their choice, I do not condemn them for it. However, it would be undeniably profitable and wise for them to be able to proficiently use Standard English whenever necessary.
Of course, I couldn't let Bert have the last word on this important subject, so I replied:
Where to begin with such misinformed, presumptuous, elitist hooey? You seemed to take everything Ms Carmichael said and, rather than denouncing it for the bigotry it is, make it twice as insulting!
If you can explain why two teenagers having a conversation on a train are required to use standard English, please do. Basically you have said they are either purposely ignorant or simply unintelligent. (Remind me which century are we living in?) Here's the problem with this kind of attitude towards "proper English": It runs roughshod over the language of entire communities and ethnic groups, and shows absolutely no respect for any form of language other than one's own (although I seriously doubt even you use standard English in everyday conversation, as very few people do).
We would never dream of calling the Frenchman "unintelligent" or "ignorant" for his language, and yet some people don't think twice about condemning the southerner or a New-Yorker or a Liverpudlian for his language. What's really being said is that some people should be ashamed of their heritage and their culture.
What do you mean, by the way, by "[stereotypes] remain the basic way in which we learn"? You seem almost to be encouraging stereotyping.
I suggest you read something written by a linguist. The world of "proper English" advocates is fuelled by myths and misconceptions invented by well-meaning people who don't have a clue about language. Here is my recommended reading list on the subject, all by trained linguists:
Proper English: Myths and Misunderstandings about Language by Ronald Wardhaugh
Language Myths ed. Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill
Language: The Basics by RL Trask
The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language by Steven Pinker (particularly for the chapter entitled "Language Mavens")
After a few days, poor Bert, probably sitting somewhere licking his wounds and wondering where this beast leapt out from all of a sudden, still did not respond. So I got guilt pangs, and posted something a little more conciliatory:
Okay, now I'm in a calmer mood (few things send me into a frenzy so much as this subject of "proper English"), and less inclined to scathing sarcasm, let me lay out the issues a little more plainly.
a. There is nothing intrinsically superior about one language, language form or dialect over another.
It is simply wrong to tell English-speakers that they are speaking English "incorrectly". A language is a language is a language. All languages and their variants have their own distinctive grammars, vocabularies and syntax. The speaker of Liverpudlian English speaks no less grammatically than the speaker of Standard English. The latter requires no more intelligence to speak than the former.
b. To denigrate a particular form of the English language is to disavow the language of an ethnic group, community or culture.
Everyone has the right to their language, and there are no scientific, logical or linguistic grounds on which one group can claim their language is proper while the language of others is inferior, improper or incorrect.
c. The value of Standard English is found in its status as currency in the marketplace.
Of course there is value in knowing how to speak Standard English. My gripe is with those who see that as reason to show utter disrespect to speakers of any other English variant, disparaging them and claiming their language is evidence of low intelligence or deliberate ignorance. This is plain nonsense.
d. Language varies according to context.
We all change our language use depending on the context we are in: With a group of our peers we speak one kind of English; with our family another; at work another again; in business another. Very few people speak Standard English in everyday conversation. We leave out words all the time, fill in blanks with idioms and colloquialisms, and add quirks of grammar that we may have picked up here and there. None of that reflects on our ability to speak or write Standard English when required.
Someone today told me that the reason we need to correct people's English is because standards are slipping, and if we don't have standards to uphold, things will descend into chaos. My response was this: Standard English is a fine standard by which to measure Standard English; New York English is a fine standard by which to measure New York English; and Liverpool English is a fine standard by which to measure Liverpool English. You get the picture. It is a myth that says the only way to judge English is by how it follows the rules of Standard English. In reality, none of us does that.
I have a big problem that people are made to feel ashamed of the language they speak. We would not dare force people to disavow their traditions, their people's music, or their artistic heritage -- we would see that as cultural imperialism. Yet when it comes to language, we think nothing of bandying around accusations of incorrectness, being improper or substandard.
There, that was a little more collected that time, eh?
So there, you've discovered one subject that really gets me wound up. Funny there are so few subjects on which I am willing to be so outspoken and so bold in a one-on-one dialogue like that. The above exchange was delivered (on my part) mostly tongue-in-cheek, but still, I meant every word of it.
Dave
10:57:22 AM 
|
|
