Why—if I am not merely a laudator temporis acti, and I am reasonably sure I am not—was language better [in the 1940s when Simon was a graduate student]? And what started it on its downhill course? For one thing, standards in the schools were higher because education had not yet been dealt the four great body blows: (1) the student rebellion of 1968, which, in essence, meant that students themselves became the arbiters of what subjects were to be taught, and grammar, by jingo (or Ringo), was not one of them; (2) the notion that in a democratic society language must accommodate itself to the whims, idiosyncrasies, dialects, and shear ignorance of underprivileged minorities, especially if these happen to be black, Hispanic, and later on, female or homosexual; (3) the introduction by more and more incompetent English teachers, products of the new system (see items 1 and 2, above) of ever fancier techniques of not teaching English, for which, if the methods involved new technologies and were couched in the appropriately impenetrable jargon, grants could readily be obtained; and (4) television—the nonlanguage and aboriginal grammar of commercials, commentators, sports announcers, athletes, assorted celebrities, and just about everyone on that word-mongering and word-mangling medium that sucks in victims far more perniciously than radio ever did.
But in my graduate-school days there were still relatively prescriptive dictionaries, i.e., ones that distiguished between the incorrect and the correct use of words based on established practice, cultural tradition, the way of good writers; between preferred and suspect, or even unacceptable, pronunciations. Descriptive, or structural, linguistics had not yet arrived—that statistical, populist, sociological approach, whose adherents claimed merely to be recording and describing the language as it was used by anyone and everyone, without imposing elitist judgments on it. Whatever came out of the untutored mouths and unsharpened pencil stubs of the people—sorry, The People—was held legitimate if not sacrosanct by these new lexicon artists.
Oh, for the times when we tended to go by the second edition of Webster's International Dictionary and its derivitives, the pre-seventh-edition Collegiates, and other lexical authorities that, although not totally prescriptive, nevertheless indicated preferences and exercised a certain selectivity. With the coming of Webster's Third in 1961, descriptive linguistics had its resounding victory.
[John Simon. 1980. Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy and Its Decline, pp.xiv-xv.]
Well, my eyes have been opened. Whoever never knew that women were a minority, and that TV commercials were written in Warlpiri?
[Fixed transcription typo.]This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,
While I tend to be somewhat prescriptivist myself, I do believe Simon goes WAAAY over the top, thereby negating, or at least diluting any kernel of veracity he may have begun with.
"Caveat Lector:" What Hannibal said, in biting prose?
the notion that in a democratic society language must accommodate itself to the whims, idiosyncrasies, dialects, and shear ignorance of underprivileged minorities, especially if these happen to be black, Hispanic, and later on, female or homosexual;
I find that statement, besides being ignorant, to be incredibly insulting to women.
Was there ever a time when the language wasn't going to hell in a handbasket? Can anyone find more than one language commentator from any period anywhere ever who wrote about the dramatic improvement in writing quality over the previous generation?
Because he says that women are "underprivileged minorities." When one considers that women account for approximately 50% of the human beings on earth, his comment about women being "a minority" doesn't even make sense. Besides that, the assumption that women are "underprivileged" is insulting. Yes, some women are underprivileged; so are some men.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,
I don't think that's what he meant, although I agree that the sentence is not as clear as it might have been. He said "...and shear ignorance of underprivileged minorities, especially if these happen to be black, Hispanic, and later on, female or homosexual..."
What I think he meant was, "...and shear ignorance of underprivileged minorities...If these minorities happen also to be black, Hispanic, female or homosexual, then the effect is even worse..."
I agree that the sentence, as written, is inaccurate and, by implication, insulting to women.
This particular passage is a good example of the problems that can arise from trying to make a single sentence do too much work. Use full stops; they don't cost anything.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
