Professor Liberman has (another) great posting on grammatical cluelessness (link).

quote:

The first reason involves a chain of events something like this:
1. Many people say or write things like "you and me were meant to be".
2. Others complain that this is illogical — "you and me" is the subject, so it should be "you and I". (Grammar is not logic, cf. French "vous et moi" not "vous et je"; but never mind.)
3. Chastened, some people say or write things like "between you and I".
4. Others then complain that "you and I" is the complement of between, so it should be "you and me".
5. Result: people like Mr. Walker, who have never been taught to recognize subject or complements or any other grammatical entities, enter a state of nervous cluelessness about how to choose between I and me in any case where doubt might arise, and even in many cases where there should never have been any doubt at all.

He goes on to discuss the strange animus against like. It's fun and educational.

Though it's sometimes a bit too technical for me Language Log is one of my favourite blogs.

If it's too technical for Bob, you can imagine what it does to my brain.

This is the part that threw me a bit, considering it was written by someone criticizing prescriptivism:

quote:

Result: people like Mr. Walker, who have never been taught to recognize subject or complements or any other grammatical entities, enter a state of nervous cluelessness about how to choose between I and me in any case where doubt might arise, and even in many cases where there should never have been any doubt at all.

I may be misunderstanding him, but he seems to be taking the same strict stance that he complains about.

I may be misunderstanding him, but he seems to be taking the same strict stance that he complains about.

He's just saying that rather than speaking and writing as what comes naturally, he tries to correct himself in ways that betray his lack of knowledge about how language works.

Being more prescriptivist than most here, I still find it discordant when I hear, "like I said." To me "like" suggests something that's identical; "as" suggests something similar, but not the same.

Like, dude, that Shakespeare dude didn't write "Like ya Like It!"

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
Being more prescriptivist than most here, I still find it discordant when I hear, "like I said." To me "like" suggests something that's identical; "as" suggests something similar, but not the same

Damn right, it should be "Like me said" (Just call me Bizarro* Bob).

(* Non-comic book fans may need to look that up.)

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I may be misunderstanding him, but he seems to be taking the same strict stance that he complains about.

He means that concern over the shibboleths "me vs I" and "like vs as" lead to a situation where David thinks it might be wrong to write "like me" - but in fact neither of the shibboleths apply in this case.

quote:

people like Mr. Walker, who have never been taught to recognize subject or complements or any other grammatical entities, enter a state of nervous cluelessness about how to choose between I and me in any case where doubt might arise, and even in many cases where there should never have been any doubt at all.

Hmmm, I see your interpretation when he says "where doubt might arise", but isn't the next part, even in many cases where there should never have been any doubt at all just a touch prescriptive?

Please understand that I have been questioning a lot this week. I was at a conference last week where a lightbulb in my mind went off. We were talking about quality improvement in medicine, and one speaker presented the results of his randomized controlled trial (RCT) where he found that their regulatory body's intervention did not show significant results. RCTs are supposed to be the highest level of research; when conducted accurately (and this one seemed to be), there is no room for misinterpretation of the results. The results speak for themselves. In this study the research team had decided ahead of time, which is appropriate, what their outcomes would be and they measured them reliably and the outcomes were valid. Yet, when our group started to discuss the study, we looked at other outcomes where there was a trend toward better results (or results that the researcher had wanted), and decided those were the more appropriate outcomes. Therefore, this august group decided that the study did, after all, show significant results and supported the regulatory intervention. These were, for the most part (and excluding me), brilliant leaders in the field of safety and quality improvement in health care. And they couldn't see this!

There's a point to that story, I promise!

So, the same may be a little true here. The interpretation of prescriptivists by descriptivists, and vice versa, could sometimes be questioned. I love Language Log, read it frequently, and have it bookmarked. But, like my brilliant colleagues at that convention, every so often I think they go a little overboard in their interpretation. In this example, David, in his 12-word question, merely said, "'I don't think everyone should write like me.' Me? Is that correct?" Theoretically, it was an innocent question. Liberman's response, consisting of 796 words, is a bit harsh at times, though not to the point of being a "diatribe" or "rant"; instead it's a little sarcastic or maybe even "holier than thou," with his "nervous cluelessness" or "strange prescriptivist animus" or "people like Mr. Walker, who have never been taught to recognize subject or complements or any other grammatical entities."

I don't mean to criticize Liberman, Language Log or prescriptivism. This particular column had just evoked a reaction from me, most likely based on my reaction from last week's conference.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

people like Mr. Walker, who have never been taught to recognize subject or complements or any other grammatical entities, enter a state of nervous cluelessness about how to choose between I and me in any case where doubt might arise, and even in many cases where there should never have been any doubt at all.

Hmmm, I see your interpretation when he says "where doubt might arise", but isn't the next part, even in many cases where there should never have been any doubt at all just a touch prescriptive?

OK. What if he'd written "even in many cases where there doesn't need to be any doubt"? Since the point is that even prescriptivists would agree that there is no problem with "like me".

I think Liberman's using that little comment as an excuse to write about grammatical cluelessness. He seems very careful to not attribute any motives to "David Walker". I didn't find it sarcastic. Note that Liberman thinks the blame for lack of grammar teaching rests with linguists:

quote:

As I wrote about another casually botched linguistic description in the popular press, I blame the linguists. Modern intellectuals are almost entirely bereft of resources for talking about the simplest facts of pronunciation, sentence structure, and meaning. This isn't their fault -- in most cases, no one has ever taught them anything about these topics. My profession has failed in its most basic duty to society.

Well I see your point. I wasn't trying to be argumentative; rather I was being reflective/philosophical. I find it interesting how people, in all walks of life (from politicians to researchers to linguists to the media to lawyers to physicians), can see the same data/evidence/information and re-interpret it to fit their world. Sometimes (and I don't mean here) it depends more on how good the debater is than on how strong the evidence is.

Of course, it's not just "linguists" who have failed. It's English teachers, writing teachers, authors, etc., as well.

One of the things that fuels the fire is that often the people insisting on the rules (call them "prescriptivists" if you will), characterise the people looking at how language is really used as believing that "anything goes". It isn't true.
I doubt if you would find any "descriptivist" who would suggest that "Me am go now, is you with come?" is a legitimate construction (At least in any dialect not invented by a Hollywood Science Fiction writer.)

This is all "even in many cases where there should never have been any doubt at all" really means.

There is no doubt that my sentence is wrong. The most charitable description would be "extrememly non standard".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

"prescriptivists" [...] characterise the people looking at how language is really used as believing that "anything goes". It isn't true.

Yes, and sad that things get so out of hand on both sides (as Wordmatic usually points out). All languages have rules, and all native speakers of language have those rules "stored" in their brain, even if they cannot articulate what they are. It still seems to me that the only way to gather and describe those rules of language are to study lots examples from that language. This approach is sometimes called corpus linguistics. For some, dead languages, the corpus is quite small (e.g., Celtiberian, Ligurian, Phrygian, Gaulish), but with languages like English, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Russian, etc., the corpora are quite large and diverse: i.e., all kinds of registers, dialects, and texts from the past.

For most linguists, the only way to talk meaningfully about language is to describe actual utterances or texts. It is interesting that most prescriptive grammarians (or stylists) never write about actual grammatical mistakes which people make all the time, but only some controversial examples of solecisms which have, more often than not, been created by other normative types. Whereas most people can agree that Bob's putative science fiction example violates many rules of all dialects of English, past or present, things like splitting infinitives, that/which usage, not ending sentences with prepositions, generic singular use of they, etc., are actually grammatical, some of which have been for hundreds of years. Instead of teaching English grammar, which very few prescriptive grammarians are familiar with (viz., the numerous examples on Language Log of people ranting against the use of passive constructions while demonstrating that they don't know what a passive construction is).

And incidentally Yoda is a Jedi master, allegedly one of the group of the best, brightest, most advanced beings in the Universe. Why does he have so much trouble with English word order?

And incidentally Yoda is a Jedi master, allegedly one of the group of the best, brightest, most advanced beings in the Universe. Why does he have so much trouble with English word order?

Well, they're not speaking English in the Star Wars continuum. From the Wookieepedia article (link) on Galactic Basic Standard:

quote:

Yoda's dialect—an unusual form of Basic utilized by Jedi Grand Master Yoda and others of his tridactyl species, including Yaddle; it was characterized by an object-subject-verb format. However, another member of this species, Vandar Tokare, did not use this dialect.

So, just like the old movie cliché (er, convention) where Germans speak English with a German accent or Romans speak UK English, while barbarians speak American English, they are trying to mimic some features of Yoda's dialect. Of course, this is all retroconned bushwa.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
or Romans speak UK English, while barbarians speak American English,

Well that bit sounds reasonable enough.

quote:

One of the things that fuels the fire is that often the people insisting on the rules (call them "prescriptivists" if you will), characterise the people looking at how language is really used as believing that "anything goes".

I think that's the crux of it, Bob. I also think it's too bad when people analyzing language and grammar become sarcastic or sometimes downright rude about the other side, much like Lynne Truss has. Had she presented her views, with evidence, it could have been the beginning of a rich, intellectual conversation. Instead, because of her attitude, she drew the lines in the sand.

[edited to add an example]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I'd like to see a definition or definitions of the two schools of thought. It's obvious that nobody seriously wants to disregard all rules, so, really, what's what here?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Asa Lovejoy,

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
I'd like to see a definition of definitions of the two schools of thought. It's obvious that nobody seriously wants to disregard all rulse, so, really, what's what here?

I think some linguists get upset at self-appointed experts making claims about language, when they (the self-appointed experts) get their facts wrong or don't know enough about language to give useful advice. And the self-appointed experts get upset at linguists describing all dialects and registers dispassionately instead of telling us what's right and what's wrong.

I don't think it's about prescriptivism vs descriptivism. There's nothing wrong with advice about usage; everyone needs advice sometimes. What I object to is uninformed advice.

It's obvious that nobody seriously wants to disregard all rulse, so, really, what's what here?

Descriptive linguists do not ignore the rules, they try to enumerate them. The normative grammarians oftentimes ignore the rules, or rather are ignorant of them. Language rules are not handed down by Divine Grammarian to Ms Thistlebottom to her students. The rules that govern a language are there for all to discern. One has merely to discern them and describe them. As has been pointed out before, much of what passes for grammar is in fact spelling, punctuation, and usage. Then their is lexical intolerance. Many normative grammarians seem to believe that words have a single, fixed meaning, and ought to forever. The ancient Greek grammarians had these two schools, under a different disguise. These linguists (or philosophers as they were called) argued that language was either a matter of φúσις (phusis) 'natural law' or νóμος (nomos) 'convention'. These roughly map to the prescriptive and descriptive schools of grammar. One tends to see all the grammatical features of other languages as mere convention (viz. the thread on grammatical gender), whereas one's own language is a model of upright and sober reason. God-given, natural, and the best of all possible features.

[Fixed typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

One tends to see all the grammatical features of other languages as mere convention (viz. the thread on grammatical gender), whereas one's own language is a model or upright and sober reason. God-given, natural, and the best of all possible features.

Hmmmmm... explaining more about god than language.