quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I made the point that I believe it is a good thing for people to correct or give other feedback on those occasions when they perceive that the language is in some way being misused. If no correction is ever given, I maintained, this
could eventually lead to verbal anarchy. And I do so still maintain.

This is a big claim, and I'd like to see some good evidence to back it up. So where is the evidence that lack of correction leads to a state of disorder where no one can understand anyone else?

quote:

This is a big claim, and I'd like to see some good evidence to back it up. So where is the evidence that lack of correction leads to a state of disorder where no one can understand anyone else?

I do not think that anarchy means total failure; it means "a state of lawlessness and disorder". And I think it is self evident that, if anyone could do whatever he or she wanted to do, without hindrance or correction, then a state of anarchy would develop. But even during an anarchistic situation, people still manage to get born, eat, drink, and live - as they would manage to get by in linguistic anarchy. Things would just be much more difficult.

I do not think that anarchy means total failure; it means "a state of lawlessness and disorder". And I think it is self evident that, if anyone could do whatever he or she wanted to do, without hindrance or correction, then a state of anarchy would develop.

And, not only is it a huge claim, but I would warrant that it is a false one. English, as all other languages in the world, ha\d gotten along very well with no risk of verbal anarchy of any kind, before the usage mavens showed up roughly two centuries ago. Where you go wrong in your assumption is that a different meaning or a different usage implies that anything goes, which it most demonstrable does not. There is a gigantic difference between verbal anarchy and the sorts of differences that exist between different dialects and ideolects.

As has been pointed out to you on many occasions, but apparently to no avail, nobody is suggesting that "anyone could do whatever he or she wanted to do, without hindrance or correction". That is not how language works, ever. Suggesting it is a possible outcome of the study of divergent meanings of some vocabulary items, is to put a lie into the mouths of your opponents. It has been recognized, at least in the West for the past two and a half millennia, that language is ruled by conventions (rules and common meanings) and that without those conventions anarchy of more than a verbal kind would hold sway. But, not one language has ever exhibited this dangerous slide into anarchy. If you are a ware of one case in the past 6000 years, I would be more than happy to study it.

It has been suggested to you on more than one occasion, but apparently to no avail, that there is a vast chasm between recording the multiple meanings of words in a language and the allowing of anything goes. Dictionaries do not allow anything, they merely describe what the state of a language is at a particular point in time and how the society that speaks and writes that language feel about it. When Fowler, for example, in the other thread I started, gives imply as one of the meanings of infer, he was careful not to suggest that this was its only meaning, just a common, historical one amongst good writers. Since I do not use infer with this meaning, my passion about those who do use it that way is a bit dulled by my own preferred usage. On the other hand, I have always used decimate to mean 'to annihilate' or 'destroy completely, and so I have no problem being passionate about that meaning. It really is the only way the word has been used in English for the past four centuries or so. And, any amount of carpiong about its meaning in Latin or what it should mean falls unheard at my feet.

OK, Richard, let's go with your definition of "anarchy" as "a state of lawlessness and disorder". I still want to see the evidence. Saying that it is self-evident is not evidence.

If anything is allowed then, sooner or later, anything will be practised unless there are checks and balances in place. That is anarchy.

That the checks and balances may be informal matters not. They exist in language as in anything else; correction by formal and informal means is one of those checks and balances.

If it were not important to correct misuse, then , as I said earlier, why bother to have English language calsses?

Incidentally "anarchy" does not mean "chaos". It does not even mean "nihilism". It means "a state of no Government". The political theory is that without Government we would function perfectly well and exercise self-control, free of tyranny. As indeed we do with language.

See how easy it is to be Humpty Dumpty?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

If it were not important to correct misuse, then , as I said earlier, why bother to have English language clsses?

And as I said earlier, I teach English as it is spoken and as the students will hear it, not as an arbitrary collection of rules and regulations.

I teach English as it is spoken and as the students will hear it, not as an arbitrary collection of rules and regulations

To reiterate. Language is rules-based and -driven. There is no language without rules. Every language and 'lect has grammar rules, as well as other kinds of rules. These rules are learned not by rote in school but unconsciously when learning the language. When languages change, their rules may change by getting simpler or they may get more complicated. Grammatical rules have little to nothing to do with style choices. In my sociolect, the following sentences are grammatically correct:

1. I am the grammarian about whom your mother warned you.
2. I am the grammarian your mother warned you about.
3. Your mother warned you about grammarians like me.

Stylistically, I would go with the second or third ones in spoken or written English. The first one, though still grammatically correct, I would eschew, unless I was making a jocular point about an archaic and deprecated usage fiat, i.e., Dryden's stupid usage rule about not ending sentences with prepositions, which the mindless have been following since he penned it and the mindful have quite rightly been ridiculing since roughly the same time. The differences between these sentences is a matter of pragmatics (or rhetoric) and not one of grammar.

As Bob pointed out, anarchy is a political system with no rules or government, and it has also come to mean a situation in which there are no rules, i.e., a state of lawlessness. Both meanings are correct and can be determined by the context of their usage. Utterances rarely exist in a vacuum. Almost any ambiguity in meaning can be winnowed out of a text by context. That is how language works. Almost any word in English has more than one meaning and yet communication occurs.

So, languages change. None of us may like it, but it is inevitable. The changes are many: pronunciation, meanings, grammatical rules, even usage choices. Fowler, in 1926, said that the objective case of who was pretty much dead and we oughtn't to worry ourselves much about it. They are still people who prefer it, but there are many more who misuse it, mainly because they are confused by usage rules that contradict unconscious grammar rules. In fact many mistakes in grammar are because the rules of one dialect (say the standard one) conflict with the rules in another (say the dialect you learned as a child). The closer the dialects, the more likely grammatical infelicities may creep in. I have never suggested that there are no rules in language. In fact, I have always suggested the opposite. My annoyance with the peevers is is that they accuse me of wanting to throw out the rules and allowing anything, but they couldn't be more wrong. rather it is the peevers who ignore about 99% of the actual grammatical rules of their language while latching on to a few shibboleths of usage, punctuation, and spelling and elevating them to the sole rules. This is both just plain wrong and rather sad.

quote:

And as I said earlier, I teach English as it is spoken and as the students will hear it, not as an arbitrary collection of rules and regulations.

Nevertheless, I am sure that you correct your students' mistakes. And the importance or relevance of correction is what this discussion is about.

quote:

Incidentally "anarchy" does not mean "chaos". It does not even mean "nihilism".

I don't think I ever suggested it did.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
If anything is allowed then, sooner or later, anything will be practised unless there are checks and balances in place. That is anarchy.

This seems like a reasonable view at first glance. But the thing is, right, is that there is no evidence that this actually happens. All languages, dialects, sociolects, etc. are systematic and rule-governed. There is no evidence that a lack of language correction leads to a state of disorder. Unless you have some evidence?

The fact that ESL students' mistakes are corrected is not good evidence imo. The sorts of mistakes that ESL students make are nothing at all like the sorts of mistakes that native speakers make. The sort of English that ESL students are taught does not have much resemblance to the rules of proper grammar that native speakers are taught in school. Second language learning is very different from first language acquisition. It does not follow that because ESL students are corrected, that therefore native speakers must be corrected in order to prevent anarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
That the checks and balances may be informal matters not. They exist in language as in anything else; correction by formal and informal means is one of those checks and balances.

What do you mean by informal correction?

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

We've heard the phrase "verbal anarchy" here before, and I have never been clear on its meaning so I've been interested in this thread. I put the phrase in Google and came up with this story in "Politics Daily" ( link) that surely doesn't make sense considering our current conversation...does it? I suppose, as with word meanings, it has other meanings as well.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
If anything is allowed then, sooner or later, anything will be practised unless there are checks and balances in place. That is anarchy.

This seems like a reasonable view at first glance. But the thing is, right, is that there is no evidence that this actually happens. All languages, dialects, sociolects, etc. are systematic and rule-governed. There is no evidence that a lack of language correction leads to a state of disorder. Unless you have some evidence?

Doesn't the fact that when populations who speak a common language are isolated from each other, they eventually will not be able to understand each other count as evidence. Language evolution is apparently a pretty chaotic process. The correction comes from recognition that you are being understood by the people you are trying to communicate with. Without that feedback you eventually will be speaking different languages.

I'm not sure if it qualifies as verbal anarchy, but is won't matter since all your base are belong to us! You have no chance to survive make your time.

quote:

It does not follow that because ESL students are corrected, that therefore native speakers must be corrected in order to prevent anarchy.

But we all are - it happens when we go to school.

quote:

What do you mean by informal correction?

It's the difference between what happens in formal and informal learning. Formal learning is when the learning is structured and done deliberately - such as in a classroom by a teacher. Informal learning is the way in which much of our skills and knowledge are acquired. We learn by experimentation, observation and imitation. The correction that takes place in informal learning will often be casual and incomplete; in formal learning feedback and correction is an integral part of the tuition.

Doesn't the fact that when populations who speak a common language are isolated from each other, they eventually will not be able to understand each other count as evidence.

Well, it counts as evidence that languages change over time. Would you call evolution genetic anarchy? A language does not devolve into chaos. Each historical state of a language has its own grammatical rules and divergent meanings. You might argue that as a language diversifies into two or more new languages (a process that would probably take a period of at least 200 or 300 years) the two groups speaking the now significantly different languages would have trouble communicating, and therefore any hope of communication would be lost.

Language evolution is apparently a pretty chaotic process.

Some parts of language change are rather regular. Phonological change, though one cannot usually predict what sounds will change into what other sounds, is regular and systematic, with some few exceptions. That is how one can compare two or more related languages together and come up with their (hypothetical) reconstructed parent language. Semantic change tends to be less regular, but you can still discern how the changes occured and make sense of them.

The correction comes from recognition that you are being understood by the people you are trying to communicate with.

Yes. Some of the work in sociolinguistics and dialectology deals with what is called accommodation theoty. If two people speaking different dialects (or languages) are speaking to one another, and they are trying to communicate, rather than just hurl invective at one another as some sort of foreplay to war, they will tend to accomodate to each other's dialect.

Without that feedback you eventually will be speaking different languages.

It has been shown that no matter what one does to try to stop language change, the effort always proves worthless. Language change is like the tide coming in and no matter how many King Canutes stand on the shore and order it not to come in, they always end up with wet feet.

As I suggested in the thread down in the linguistics section, I am not suggesting that we don't correct ESL students or even point out to speakers of other dialects who are having trouble writing formal standard English, but in casual conversation it is these corrections themselves which impede communication. Also, I simply ask that the corrector gets his or her story right and not assert things about the language that are demonstrably false (as many of the ex cathedra usage fiats of the typical normative grammar are), ill-researched, or entirely made up out of whole cloth.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

It does not follow that because ESL students are corrected, that therefore native speakers must be corrected in order to prevent anarchy.

But we all are - it happens when we go to school.

Yes, native speakers are corrected in school. But 1) that doesn't mean they need to be corrected to prevent verbal anarchy.

and 2) native speakers can already speak their language by the time they start school, so the correction they receive has nothing to do with making them speak their language more accurately. Instead it has a lot to do with making their writing conform to a certain norm, often thru the use of rules that have nothing to do with clarity or communication. Contrast this with ESL students, who are corrected so that they can learn to speak English more accurately.

and 3) I still don't see any evidence that lack of correction leads to verbal anarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by Myth Jellies:
Doesn't the fact that when populations who speak a common language are isolated from each other, they eventually will not be able to understand each other count as evidence.

But that's not "a state of lawlessness and disorder".

quote:

Originally posted by Myth Jellies:
Language evolution is apparently a pretty chaotic process.

Language change is systematic.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I put the phrase in Google and came up with this story in "Politics Daily" ( link) that surely doesn't make sense considering our current conversation...does it? I suppose, as with word meanings, it has other meanings as well.

I'm not even sure what "verbal anarchy" is supposed to mean in the context of that article.

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

I have decided that, from now on, I am going to use the word anarchy to mean considerable confusion. And, as has been mentioned more than once here, it is OK for people to use the language in a way that suits them and, as has also been mentioned, there's no point in anyone correcting me, since lack of correction will not lead to confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I have decided that, from now on, I am going to use the word anarchy to mean considerable confusion. And, as has been mentioned more than once here, it is OK for people to use the language in a way that suits them and, as has also been mentioned, there's no point in anyone correcting me, since lack of correction will not lead to confusion.

I never said that. Sure, lack of correction can lead to confusion. But it's a confusion that can be cleared up if both parties wish it (cf zmj's mention of accommodation theory). It's not a state of lawlessness and disorder.

quote:

Would you call evolution genetic anarchy?

That's an excellent point, z.

quote:

I'm not even sure what "verbal anarchy" is supposed to mean in the context of that article.

I wasn't sure that I did, either, goofy, though clearly it has something to do with racism. I was just struck that, at least with my computer, that was one of the top Google hits for "verbal anarchy." I remain confused as to what the phrase means, though in looking up the word, one of the synonyms is "confusion," along with "political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control."

One thing I've always noticed about different word uses, accents, dialects and even languages, is that it tends to bring people together, and not isolate them. I think it's one of the reasons this board has lasted for so long. We are all so intrigued by the differences in our use of language, and that isn't just between England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. It's also across countries.

While there are certainly overtones of racism inherent in the term, I think it is mainly used to describe the intemperate way in which language is used to demonize others, especially in a political context.

quote:

Yes, native speakers are corrected in school. But 1) that doesn't mean they need to be corrected to prevent verbal anarchy.

and 2) native speakers can already speak their language by the time they start school, so the correction they receive has nothing to do with making them speak their language more accurately.

You are splitting hairs here and you know it. Of course many children will already speak their native tongue with a measure of fluency - but they will have received correction and feedback from their parents. This process is continued at school for all sorts of reasons - and making them speak more accurately is just one of those reasons.

quote:

Would you call evolution genetic anarchy?

Evolution is fairly anarchic in its natural forms, since the feedback each generation receives is based only on the prevailing circumstances of an organism's existence. As Darwin postulated, the variations in each generation's makeup will mean that those modifications that help survival will tend to be regenerated; those which are disdvantageous will disappear. A form of natural balance is established but it is only controlled by circumstances, not the dictats of a controlling being (unless you believe in a deity, of course).

But once humankind discovered how to manipulate the process for its own ends, then much of the evolution in those species which humankind wishes to take advantage of has been very carefully controlled for thousands of years. Whether or not that's always a good thing is another debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

Of course many children will already speak their native tongue with a measure of fluency - but they will have received correction and feedback from their parents.

I don't like prolonging this argument but this is flat out not true. Some children receive extensive feedback and correction from their parents. Most don't. ALL learn their native language. Not only is there no evidence that a lack of correction prevents children learning their first language there is considerable evidence that amount of correction they receive makes no difference whatsoever to how well they learn it. Kraschen's Input Hypothesis suggests that the sole necessary condition is that the child be exposed to language input that is a little ahead of its current level. Some children are plonked in front of the TV-babysitter for most of their early years. They still manage to learn the language. If you like I can recommend some literature on the subject. I'm sure that goofy and zm can recommend rather a lot more.

With second language learners things are different. Correction is useful there for all sorts of reasons, but it must be judicially applied correction.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
You are splitting hairs here and you know it.

I don't think so. Children can speak their native language accurately before they start school. By "accurately" I mean they follow the grammatical rules for their language. In school they're taught things like "don't use ain't," "this is how to spell," "this is how you write an essay", "word X means Y and not Z", and so on. These things have nothing to do with accurately using the grammar of their native language.

Here are some examples of what I mean by grammar.

2 is grammatical but 4 is not.

1 I gave a present to him.
2 I gave him a present.

3 I explained the problem to him.
4 *I explained him the problem.

The position of adverbs in a sentence relatively free, but we can't put the adverb between the verb and the object.

5 I explained the problem to him clearly.
6 I clearly explained the problem to him.
7 I explained the problem clearly to him.
8 *I explained clearly the problem to him.

In these sentences

9 When I get home, he will be cooking dinner.
10 *When I will get home, he will be cooking dinner.

both clauses describe events in the future, but the verb in the subordinate clause cannot take will.

English Children are not taught this in school. They acquire it as part of the language acquisition process. And as Bob says, presence or absence of correction from their parents is irrelevant. This is what I mean by accurately using their language. In school they are taught other things, useful things, but the bulk of the grammar has already been set. Certainly they might learn things in school that change how they use their language. But I'm not aware of any evidence that linguistic anarchy will ensue from a lack of education.

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

Obviously we're never going to agree here. I believe that lack of any correction will lead to anarchy in any sphere of human existence (learning right from wrong is one form of correction and without such learning people will not behave according to prevailing norms).

I don't think specific evidence is needed; it is an observable fact that children whose parents have not taught them the difference between right and wrong (or have taught them a different values system) will behave in an anarchic fashion by normal standards. And I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to language as much as anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:

quote:

Doesn't the fact that when populations who speak a common language are isolated from each other, they eventually will not be able to understand each other count as evidence.

But that's not "a state of lawlessness and disorder".

It is disorder from the point of view of an outside global observer when you have one population speaking a hypothetical parent language splitting off into many different populations each speaking their own child language & no two populations can understand each other. It can also be thought of as lawless; because when two populations separate, the governing feedback loop of mutual understanding that kept the two populations speaking the same language when they were together no longer exists.

quote:

Language change is systematic.

The fact that we've managed to trace the footprints of two related languages back to a hypothetical ancestor does not mean that we can ever determine in advance how the massive set of memes we call our language are going to evolve.

quote:

Would you call evolution genetic anarchy?

If your child died of some genetic disorder, I think calling him a victim of genetic anarchy would be a rather apt description. Brutal competition, mutations, extinctions--survive to reproduce is your only law/feedback loop--it sounds a lot like anarchy to me.

Native English speakers do not go to school to learn how to speak with their English speaking classmates. They go to school to learn how to speak, for lack of a better term, academic English. This is the language in which they will be taught, be tested, will teach others, be accepted and/or be rejected by academia. This is also a language for which there may be no effective feedback loop of understanding for a child outside of the school environment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Myth Jellies,

The fact that we've managed to trace the footprints of two related languages back to a hypothetical ancestor does not mean that we can ever determine in advance how the massive set of memes we call our language are going to evolve.

The fact that, given a set of correspondences between forms in a parent language and its child language, one can predict what a form would sound like in the child language, even if it does not exist, suggests to me that what we are dealing with is systematic change. True, given a language with no descendants, one could not predict what a possible child language might look like, but then the same holds true in evolutionary biology. The changes as some to language happening at the level of an individual's grammar and phonology are going to be mutually intelligible with other individuals in the speech community. The changes taking place are small over a period of time of two or more overlapping generations. Let me reiterate, some large parts of language change, while not predictable, are systematic. This is uncontroversial and incontrovertible. If you don't believe, that's OK. I guess communication is really impossible between us.

If your child died of some genetic disorder, I think calling him a victim of genetic anarchy would be a rather apt description. Brutal competition, mutations, extinctions--survive to reproduce is your only law/feedback loop--it sounds a lot like anarchy to me.

Well, language changes is not like that. And a genetic disorder is not genetic anarchy. Plus the corrections that happen in language have no real counterpart in genetics, unless you take into account something like eugenics or breeding. The sorts of mutation that happen to an animal's DNA that may direct its evolution into another species is anything from anarchic. If it were anarchic the animal would probably not be capable of breeding with the rest of the population or maybe not live to breeding age.

Anarchy, to me, is just not what happens with language change. We would have a very difficult time communicate with an English speaker from 1000 years ago. But we have no problem speaking with people 50 years older than us. Even, if you go back a couple hundred years, you would still be able to communicate.

Again, as Richard suggests above, nobody is going to convince either of you otherwise, so let's just drop the subject. (You can even believe that you won the argument. Works for me.) We can all go back to workshopping limericks and discussing the weather.

quote:

If your child died of some genetic disorder, I think calling him a victim of genetic anarchy would be a rather apt description. Brutal competition, mutations, extinctions--survive to reproduce is your only law/feedback loop--it sounds a lot like anarchy to me.

I disagree. Darwin's theory of evolution in fact described what would happen, while previously people had no idea what might happen...or why. Certainly now we know that if 2 parents have a recessive gene, yes, a child might die of a genetic disorder. Or if first cousins marry, there will most likely be genetic disorders. And so on. We didn't know that before, so it all seemed chaotic...or like anarchy. Now, life is not perfect (nor is language or parents in teaching right and wrong or anything else.) So, yes, there will be mutations and other variances not to be expected, but generally genetic evolution has brought clarity to the understanding of genetics when before it was total confusion (i.e., "anarchy").

I also think this comment is exceedingly hard to verify:

quote:

it is an observable fact that children whose parents have not taught them the difference between right and wrong (or have taught them a different values system) will behave in an anarchic fashion by normal standards.

But that's another subject, I guess.

quote:

I also think this comment is exceedingly hard to verify:

I don't think it is. It is commonly reported that children and youths who commit crimes come from disturbed or abnormal backgrounds.

My mother told me, as long ago as I can remember, that if I were ever in any kind of trouble I should ask a policeman for help. I have always done just that. But I had contemporaries at school who had a quite different attitude; they had been taught that the police were to be feared and avoided. They were the enemy, in fact.

Unless that belief were corrected in some way, then those children who considered that life was a war between the police and "normal people" would be likely to get into more trouble than those who considered that the police were there to help and assist.

There are many, many examples of this kind of thing.

Richard, you are an intelligent man.
You know as well as we do that phrases like "it is commonly reported", "it is an observable fact" or "there are many examples of this kind of thing" do not constitute evidence. They constitute belief and prejudice.
It is commonly reported that the MMR jab causes autism. It is also not true.
It is observable fact that the sun goes round the earth. This is also not true.
There are many examples of people who have seen UFOs. It doesn't mean they exist.

Additionally saying that something is true of genetics or that something is true of sociological norms is a straw man argument. Even if it were true of those disciplines, which is in itself debatable, that does not mean that it would also be true of linguistics.

Show us the research, the specific research, that says that correction improves first language learning. Show us any single piece of research, any single piece of evidence beyond "we'll it's self-evident, isn't it". Point to one single researcher, one single expert in the field who agrees with you. If you can back up your point of view with something more substantial than personal belief and supposition, we might be able to hold a rational discussion on the subject.

My comment was in response to Kalleh's comment, not yours. I have already said that I'll say no more about correction in language and will add only this.

Although you, in your own job, do correct the language of your students, you seem to believe that correction of language - other than your own correction of your students - has no effect. If this is the case then we have to agree to differ. I assume that you have research that backs up your claim that correction is important for second language learners but pointless for all others...

The great thing about banging your head on a wall is that it's lovely when you stop.
I'm stopping now.

quote:

Originally posted by Myth Jellies:

The fact that we've managed to trace the footprints of two related languages back to a hypothetical ancestor does not mean that we can ever determine in advance how the massive set of memes we call our language are going to evolve.

I agree with zmj... Large parts of language change are unpredictable, but they are systematic.

quote:

Originally posted by Myth Jellies:

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
But that's not "a state of lawlessness and disorder".

It is disorder from the point of view of an outside global observer when you have one population speaking a hypothetical parent language splitting off into many different populations each speaking their own child language & no two populations can understand each other. It can also be thought of as lawless; because when two populations separate, the governing feedback loop of mutual understanding that kept the two populations speaking the same language when they were together no longer exists.

I see. It certainly might be social disorder, but it's not linguistic disorder. If one language splits into two, then we have two linguistic systems, each one of which is systematic and rule-governed.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I assume that you have research that backs up your claim that correction is important for second language learners but pointless for all others...

Since I'm not aware of any evidence that lack of correction of native speakers leads to linguistic anarchy, I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim that it does. But you've said that you don't think evidence is required, so fair enough. Let's have a beer.

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

quote:

The great thing about banging your head on a wall is that it's lovely when you stop.
I'm stopping now.

It's good that we agree on this at least.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I assume that you have research that backs up your claim that correction is important for second language learners but pointless for all others...

Since I'm not aware of any evidence that lack of correction of native speakers leads to linguistic anarchy, I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim that it does. But you've said that you don't think evidence is required, so fair enough. Let's have a beer.

It all depends on what Richard means by "lack of correction". If he means the elimination of all feedback loops then goofy and zmj have essentially given him all the ammunition he needs with their own posts. If he means the elimination of only one particular feedback loop method then, as goofy and zmj say, there are probably other feedback loops that can take up the slack.

quote:

It all depends on what Richard means by "lack of correction". If he means the elimination of all feedback loops then goofy and zmj have essentially given him all the ammunition he needs with their own posts.

In my original post I wrote, "...I believe it is a good thing for people to correct or give other feedback on those occasions when they perceive that the language is in some way being misused. If no correction is ever given, this could eventually lead to verbal anarchy..." (my emboldening). I did not suggest that the correction should be given only by parents, teachers or linguistic peevologists, I wrote, and meant, all correction (although I accept that my post was triggered by a discusssion about peevologists.

But since this thread has given rise to as much ire as have my posts about modern art (and thus impossible to debate rationally) I feel it might be better for me to say no more.

I suppose it hinges on what you think a grammar is. For most, it's a set of rules that govern the production of grammatical utterances. Leaving aside the formalism itself (whether some sort of context-free rewrite rules or a plain language description of the rules), it seem evident to me that nobody learns their native language by having the rules explicitly enumerated for them. in fact, most people have no way of articulating or enumerating what all the grammar rules of their language are.

Now, what about corrective feedback? There are two very different questions here:

1. Does it occur in first language acquisition (FLA)? (And if so how frequently?)

2. Does it have any effect on FLA?

The answers I have seen to these two questions from researchers in child language acquisition (see my thread in the Linguistics forum below) have been:

1. It occurs, but not too frequently.

2. It seems to have no effect on the process of FLA.

The assertion (without evidence of any kind) was that lack of corrective feedback would lead to verbal anarchy. The three of us who doubted this statement of opinion have given our reasons why. If the friendly opposition wish to believe it, they are free to do so. Just don't tell me it is us who are being irrational.

I have an anecdote. (no Geoff, I don't keep it in a glass tank and feed it mice!)

When I started to relearn German as an adult, a woman in my class asked with perfect seriousness, "Why does German have all these tenses when English doesn't?"

She spoke English perfectly (well, as perfectly as any of us round here speak it) and used the full range of tenses, moods, aspects and voices available in English verb forms. She just had no idea that that's what she was doing. I knew all about this because I am of an age group that received formal education in English Grammar (even if some of the terminology was different back then) and she was a few years younger and part of the group educated when English schools had done away with English Grammar altogether.

quote:

When I started to relearn German as an adult, a woman in my class asked with perfect seriousness, "Why does German have all these tenses when English doesn't?"

And obviously the tutor wouldn't have corrected her misapprehension, since this kind of correction has no purpose or effect.

quote:

But since this thread has given rise to as much ire as have my posts about modern art (and thus impossible to debate rationally)

That is ludicrous, Richard. This has been a civil, and, at times, intellectual conversation.

Bob, that anecdote says it all.

By the way, given Tinman's post in the "Newspaper articles of interest" thread, it does make one question all evidence. But that's another story.

quote:

That is ludicrous, Richard. This has been a civil, and, at times, intellectual conversation.

I wish I could agree, Kalleh. Intellectual, yes; always rational and civil, I fear not. But I'll say no more in public.

Well, perhaps you have me with "always."

I have found, from working with regulatory language, one word can throw the whole thought. "Always" and "never" are hard to beat.

Below is a Voice of the People in today's Chicago Tribune:

quote:

Our culture seems to have become inundated with "got this, got that" dialogue to the extent that it has "dumbed down" the level of day-to-day communication.

"Got" isn't just popping up more often in everyday speech. It's in the newspaper, on TV and on radio. Even the president has been heard to say it.

Does it grate on you every time you hear "got" used and realize that have and must are readily available to play a role in the sentence?

Do you want to smack yourself when, despite the best intentions, "got" keeps falling out of your own mouth because you hear it so often?

"Got" is the past tense and past participle of "get." It is a word in the dictionary and it has its own place in the language. However, do we want it to dominate to the point where we no longer know other words to use?

Already many commonly say "gotta go" instead of "have to go" or "must go." The latter two are beginning to sound rather stilted, aren't they?

So. Do we sit back and just let our language deteriorate?

I asked a relative if this issue bothers her. She said, "No. Our language is just evolving."

Does that have to be OK? We Americans seem to always be in a hurry, seeking the fastest way to do everything. How are we using that time saved? Let's hope we are working on a cure for cancer, not just sending yet another text message deciding where to meet for dinner.

May there continue to be people who resist the urge to take the easy out, in language as in life.

Clearly, this is an emotional subject for many people.

You got to be kidding

I wonder if people in the 16th century complained when have to began to be used in the sense "to be obliged".

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

"Got" is the past tense and past participle of "get."

In many parts of the States, the older gotten is still the past participle of to get. (As indeed it still is in the verb to forget.) Years ago, when the Got Milk campaign started, I ran into somebody at a party who launched into a diatribe on the whole got X snowclone. I thought she was going to have a heartattack, but I saw here just a month or so ago at a mutual friend's birthday party, so I figure she and English survived just fine. Back in the late '70s, I remember wanting to do a paper for a syntax and semantic class on the various uses of get as an auxiliary verb in English (especially the get passive construction. I was dissuaded by my professor, George lakoff, who thought it was too large a subject for a short term paper. The whole got X thing seems pretty dated to my ears these days but who knows, maybe the author lives ikn a time vortex or something.

Fairly often on some reality shows I've heard "I borrowed money to him" when the person meant they had loaned money to someone. And it seems some have also "boughten" something.

I've heard "I borrowed money to him" when the person meant they had loaned money to someone.

Often I've heard the peevers deplore the use of loan as a verb, even though it's been donkey's ears since it has done. It is an interesting phenomenon to watch, this flipping of meaning in so-called verbs of reciprocity. Give and take, sell and buy, come and go. A good example is what happened to PIE *gwem- in various of the daughter languages: Sanskrit √gam (gacchati) 'go', Greek βαινω (bainō) 'come', Latin veniō 'come', and English come 'come'.