Now, Cat, you can't titillate us with your presence and then leave.

I love the Ladder of Inference, WM.

However, I am confused. I suspect, from postings in this thread, that most here are prescriptivists. Zmj said:

quote:

"The "there are less cars on the road nowadays" or "we have less games this season" one. If somebody said this in my presence I'd pass over it in silence. If somebody wrote something like this in an English class, I'd correct it, and try to state how less and fewer are used by good writers of standard English.

"Good writers of standard English"? Really? As I had said quite awhile ago in this long thread, I thought we had come to consensus on Wordcraft that "less" can replace "fewer." Now I find that even those who are more descriptive in attitudes don't agree with that. Here is a portion of an online usage note from the Random House Dictionary:

quote:

When not followed by than, fewer is more frequent only in formal written English, and in this construction also the use of less is increasing: This year we have had less crimes, less accidents, and less fires than in any of the last five years.

Then even more perplexedly, arnie won't split infinitives in formal writing?

I thought I'd caught on to all this prescriptive/descriptive stuff, but apparently I haven't. From this discussion, I am hearing that Strunk and White is still alive and well for formal writing because our "good writer" colleagues will be judging us. On the other hand, we are free to write as we like informally. At least that's what I am hearing in this thread. It has been stunning, at best.

While I hate to set up these categories, I suspect I am a liberal descriptivist.

I don't think that descriptive and prescriptive are opposites. It is possible to be both in different contexts and for different reasons.

The opposite of a prescriptivist would be someone who claimed that anything goes. While such people exist, afaik they haven't written any books or newspaper columns like so many prescriptivists have. Many people understand "descriptive" to mean "anything goes" but I think this is a mischaracterization of descriptive linguistics.

Also there can be useful prescriptivism, and unhelpful and even harmful prescriptivism. Bill Poser has a post about it:

quote:

So, what is prescriptivism? The term can actually be used in two senses, only one of which carries any value judgment. At one level, we can distinguish between descriptive linguistics, whose goal is to describe as accurately as possible what people actually do, and prescriptive linguistics, whose goal is to tell people what do. As I point out below, there are circumstances in which linguistic prescription is perfectly appropriate, but most of the time the term prescriptivism is used in a second sense, one that carries with it a negative value judgment.

arnie won't split infinitives in formal writing because even though he knows it's OK; even though he knows that people who know a thing or two about language know it's OK; even though he knows that anyone telling him it's not OK is wrong; even though he knows all this he also knows that somebody is going to read it and come along and say "you can't do that" and then he has to either get into an argument about it or back down.

Sometimes, as you probably thought half way through that sentence, life is just too short.

Nice perspective, Bob, and I see your point.

I do agree, goofy, that a descriptivist isn't the opposite of a prescriptivist. No one interested in language and communication would say or write, "Them are nice." And no one here is advocating anything like that. It's the nuances that we are discussing, and I find this discussion quite interesting. I suppose in my post above I was sounding a little too annoyed. We are having 100% humidity in Chicago right now, and that is definitely affecting my attitude, I think. Wordmatic made a good point when she said:

quote:

Something I observed at the gathering in Columbus was that little controversies would bubble up and be debated hotly for a few minutes and then they were over. In contrast, on the board, where it's only words on the screen, there is so much room for misinterpretation and misunderstanding because people cannot see each others' faces or hear their tones of voice, which would help them to judge the intent of the writer.

That is so true. I am going to revise it (with your permission, WM) and post it in our thread on tips for newcomers.

I also think that there is a difference between badly written text and an ungrammatical one. I have read many texts that were meaning free, but perfectly grammatical. This is one of my peeves with the imprecise way that the terms grammar and grammatical are used by most prescriptivists. For me, punctuation, spelling, logical argumentation, and rhetorical devices are not grammar.

Many grammatical infelicities in writing is caused by a speaker of a non-standard or regional dialect trying to imitate the standard one. As I've said before, imitating a different language from your native one is extremely difficult and native speakers can usually suss out what you're up to.

quote:

That is so true. I am going to revise it (with your permission, WM) and post it in our thread on tips for newcomers.

Certainly--of course.

WM

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
No one interested in language and communication would say or write, "Them are nice."

Of course not. It should be "Them IS nice."

quote:

life is just too short

Exactly, Bob!

However, my main point was that formal writing should be unremarkable. It should flow smoothly with nothing to distract the reader from the content. If someone were to spot a split infinitive, raise his eyes to the heavens, mutter "Yet another grammatical ignoramus!" and then return to reading he would be distracted and less able to take in the message that was intended to be conveyed. He might also be prejudiced by the perceived error and (even if subconciously) be less receptive to the argument.

The split infinitive "error" was purely an example; there are plenty of others that with a little forethought it is advisable to avoid. Sometimes it isn't possible to avoid upsetting some readers. For instance, the car belonging to Mr Jones is Mr Jones's car to me; plenty of others would see this as a mistake and believe it should be written as Mr Jones' car.

This only applies to formal writing. If I were a James Joyce, Robert Frost, or Ernest Hemingway I quite likely would use constructions that drew attention to the words used per se.

I think what Arnie says makes sense. I also think I'd like to make a proposal, a la Cat, that no kind of 'scriptivism ever should be deemed "bad" or "wrong." Each just is. In fact, I have decided to take the veil of a-scriptivism and live in a hut on a high mountain where there is no wifi that can penetrate my solitude.

Or something.

Meanwhile, here's a poem from John Berryman that I always thought was wonderful and probably only partially "get." Somehow, it fits into this thread.

quote:

Dream Song 5:
Henry sats in de bar & was odd,
off in the glass from the glass,
at odds wif de world & its god,
his wife is a complete nothing,
St Stephen
getting even.

Henry sats in de plane & was gay.
Careful Henry nothing said aloud
but where a Virgin out of cloud
to her Mountain dropt in light,
his thought made pockets & the plane buckt.
'Parm me, lady.' 'Orright.'

Henry lay in de netting, wild,
while the brainfever bird did scales;
Mr Heartbreak, the New Man,
come to farm a crazy land;
an image of the dead on the fingernail
of a newborn child.

Cheers--
Wordmatic

quote:

If someone were to spot a split infinitive, raise his eyes to the heavens, mutter "Yet another grammatical ignoramus!" and then return to reading he would be distracted and less able to take in the message that was intended to be conveyed.

I responded to this in Bob's fewer and less thread. Beyond that, I won't prolong this argument. Suffice it to say, I respectfully disagree with you, arnie.

quote:

This is one of my peeves with the imprecise way that the terms grammar and grammatical are used by most prescriptivists. For me, punctuation, spelling, logical argumentation, and rhetorical devices are not grammar.

Pardon my ignorance, but I think I am not clear on what grammar is then. I can understand that spelling isn't a part of grammar, but couldn't the others be considered grammar? When I read the definition, it says "the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed..." Wouldn't that be related to punctuation or rhetorical devices?


Is that a new signature, WM?

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

not clear on what grammar is

Grammar, traditionally, is about the structure of and the rules which govern language. Not all languages are written, yet they still have grammar. That leaves out spelling and punctuation.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
not clear on what grammar is

Grammar, traditionally, is about the structure of and the rules which govern language. Not all languages are written, yet they still have grammar. That leaves out spelling and punctuation.

Why should the grammar of written languages not include at least punctuation just because spoken languages do not include it? When languages that are spoken-only progress to writing, they can include punctuation and spelling in their grammar too!

Yes, Kalleh, that is my new signature, and as long as it is not seen as too inflammatory, long may it wave.

WM

Why should the grammar of written languages not include at least punctuation just because spoken languages do not include it?

Because it isn't a useful distinction and it dilutes the meaning of the word grammar. Everybody is, of course, free to use words in any way they want to, but it may lead to misunderstandings and hinder communication.

quote:

Grammar, traditionally, is about the structure of and the rules which govern language. Not all languages are written, yet they still have grammar. That leaves out spelling and punctuation.

That's an interesting point. I wondered why one definition said that pronunciation is sometimes considered grammar. On the other hand, perhaps it shouldn't be if punctuation isn't.

WM, when I posted that about your signature, this is all that appeared on the screen: [i][/i]. That's what I had meant. Your new one is surely not inflammatory, and I like it.

pronunciation

Probably because, like it or not, many words have many different meanings. For me orthoepy and orthography are not a part of grammar, nor is punctuation, the lexicon, or unclear writing, but phonology, morphology, and syntax are. Just how I see it, others are free to use other meanings and have a kitchen sink definition of grammar if they want to.

I know that the powers that be at my place consider punctuation to be a part of grammar. However, I already irritated them by saying that Lynne Truss's book is not a style guide, so I think I will stay quiet on this.

quote:

Everybody is, of course, free to use words in any way they want to, but it may lead to misunderstandings and hinder communication.

Which is exactly my point as to why prescriptivism and descriptivism both have value and can complement each other.

I find it interesting that the definition of grammar 'shouldn't include punctuation because not all languages are written'. To me, that's a bit like excluding bones from anatomy studies because some creatures are invertebrates. I don't see a problem with a concept of written grammar that includes punctuation and spoken grammar that doesn't. And yet having said that, spoken language does have 'punctuation' in its use of pauses, rhythm, meter, tone etc, and I see written punctuation as a way of trying to emulate that to make written language easier to read. Certain of these pauses etc even seem to be part of the 'rules' of spoken language, in that they appear to be naturally standardised, so to me punctuation could be seen as part of the rules of both spoken and written language. But then, I'm merely an interested amateur.

I'm feeling mischievous right now, but it strikes me that if many people choose to include punctuation in their meaning of 'grammar', shouldn't a pure descriptivist (if they exist) be acknowledging and 'describing' this alternative usage rather then expressing a dislike of it? The latter seems a bit prescriptivist to me .

WM, I like the idea of ascriptivism. I've yet to work out whether I'm both or neither - all I know is that I don't subscribe to 'two legs baaaad, four legs gooood' .

it strikes me that if many people choose to include punctuation in their meaning of 'grammar', shouldn't a pure descriptivist (if they exist) be acknowledging and 'describing' this alternative usage rather then expressing a dislike of it?

That is what I did. I said how most linguists define the term grammar, and that it excludes spelling and punctuation. I also said you're free, in the sense that it doesn't bother me if others have a different meaning of grammar which includes spelling and punctuation. And, in fact, that's how many prescriptivists define grammar. Both definitions are arbitrary and neither is better or more truer than the other. You use yours and I'll continue to use mine. I was just trying to explain why I use mine. Problems occur that when people from the two groups discuss language, they'll spend most of their time arguing over terminology rather than discussing language.

Prescriptivists also exclude from grammar, or just plain ignore, what which most linguists find fascinating, because they neither describe nor prescribe most of the rules which govern language. In fact, the difference between the two camps, is that to describe a language and its grammar (please note that these two things are not identical), you have to study it by either listening to people speak it or read what they write. You will try to group them into classes: e.g., mid 19th century British writers, late 20th century Cockney laborers. Those two classes would yield different dialects with different vocabularies and grammars. That's where the descriptivist stops. The prescriptivist partially describes one dialect, the socially prestigious one, and then declares all other dialects to be corrupted and degenerated versions of this platonic ideal. Further more, they have a smallish bunch of usage rules, which they call grammar rules, which they have decided are the only defense between communication and utter ruin. These "rules" aren't really a part of grammar, but are rather usage rules because they are optional and merely a matter of choice. That's really why I exclude punctuation and other stylistic usage rules from grammar. To me, whether or not nouns have plurals marked by -s or not (i.e., the difference between count and mass nouns), is matter of grammar. Whether I spell a word jail, gaol, or /'ʤejl/ is a matter of spelling. You can have languages without orthographies, but you cannot have languages without grammar.

anatomy ... bones ...

Here's another analogy. I find the inclusion of punctuation and spelling in a definition of grammar to be more like saying that a study of anatomy should include a person's sexual orientation and their job history. Certainly interesting topics to study, but having nothing to do with anatomy.

ascriptivism

Ah, yes, coining new (and unnecessary) words will simply ruin this language. Good job! (And imagine a massive emoticon here with winking eye and tongue firmly in check stuck.)

Lol - we do need a tongue-in-cheek emoticon, don't we? The winky one isn't quite the same thing really.

What I was referring to was when you said "it isn't a useful distinction and it dilutes the meaning of the word grammar", which to me seemed to be going against your usual stance which I perecive to be rather more laissez-faire. I was trying to show that sometimes a bit of prescriptivism is (shock horror!) a good thing to avoid too much confusion.

I too get frustrated at the different meanings different groups apply to the same terminology. I'm talking here about a very specific context rather than in general - I know many ordinary words have multiple meanings and we understand just fine! It's just that in academia etc, it can be really annoying to read a piece by somebody and have to know whether they're an economist, sociologist, environmentalist or ecologist to understand what they mean by "development" (or you risk getting the wrong end of the stick). Rather than appropriating an existing word and giving it a subtly different meaning which could confuse people of different disciplines, it's much better to create a new word or just, I don't know, change the existing word slightly to signify its different meaning.

The same thing happens when medical words are diluted so much in common parlance that the conditions they relate to - and therefore the sufferers - become trivialised. This happens a lot in mental health: depressed is a good example.

What I was referring to was when you said "it isn't a useful distinction and it dilutes the meaning of the word grammar", which to me seemed to be going against your usual stance which I perecive to be rather more laissez-faire. I was trying to show that sometimes a bit of prescriptivism is (shock horror!) a good thing to avoid too much confusion.

I've admitted that I use Standard US English when appropriate. I have no problem with standards or non-standards. What I was trying to point out to you that more often than not (horrors!) prescriptivists get their history of language wrong and have observations about language change which are not backed up by the facts which are evident to anybody but the most casual amateur of language. My attitude is not really laissez faire in matters of any language, but what are the facts. Not what I want them to be but what they actually are. Again, there is no Academy of the English Language (and for that I am happy) that can prescribe how you or I ought to speak or write. And describing how things are is not the same thing as licensing their state or evolution. Now it's my turn to be exasperated. For me, and most linguists I've read and talked with, grammar does not include punctuation or spelling. That does not mean we don't use punctuation or spelling, or that those things are not important or worthy of study, but it does mean that the way we talk about grammar excludes those things. I guess we shall just have to choose not to discuss language or grammar, but instead talk about the weather and other neutral subjects. Sorry about that.

[Edited to correct a few mistakes.]

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