Sep 5, 2008
Believing that some grammar is good and some is bad is baseless and prejudiced.
Like this post?
In the comments of Johnathon Bowers’s blog, I explain why I think it’s so important to stop judging others’ use of language.
* * * * *
© 2012 Abuyo. All rights reserved.
Hello — started reading your blog regularly (after reading your post about how to keep up with blogs by subscribing to feeds or e-mails :) ) a couple of weeks ago, and this post engenders some thinking out loud here. What kinds of implications does this have for teaching some standard (any standard) of structure for our language? Does teaching what I’ll call “media English,” for lack of a better descriptor, support and encourage the economic/ethnic/geographical elitism to which you refer? Is there a way to teach a standard without transgressing into such elitism? Where I grew up, in my generation, I’d estimate that roughly half or more of high school graduates could not speak (and many, understand) media English, which tended to limit the professional level to which they could rise. Consequently, my parents, both bilingual in different languages, only spoke media English in the home (and so we are all sadly monolingual), and we were not allowed to speak pidgin, although we all can. I agree on raising children who are not critical of others’ language, particularly disrespectfully, but does that mean we ought not teach them grammar at all? Again, I don’t have clear answers, but am musing out loud (as I prepare to correct their grammar…)
I think we should teach kids whatever languages will serve them. But I don’t think any language needs to be taught at the expense of another.
That is, we can teach kids standard English without setting it against the vernacular they may speak at home.
One is not right and the other wrong. They’re just 2 different dialects.
So is it also ok for their parents/culture/whoever to teach them that 2+2=5 and is it judgmental of me to correct them?
or is it whomever? :)
No, I don’t suppose that’s OK, because 2+2 doesn’t equal 5.
Could you expand on the connection you see between the immutable facts of math and the constantly-changing reality of language?
I’m with ya, Abraham. I wrote a similar post last year. Check it out here.
Wow, I couldn’t disagree with Abraham more, which is unusual. Saying that all usages are not equal is not judmgental; it’s just fact. (Of course, in the literal sense, it is judmental in that it’s making a judgment, but I assume you mean it’s judgmental in a negative sense. See how even the word “judgmental” has been wrongly hijacked and given a negative connotation no matter the context? I digress.)
To say that a person need not be taught correct grammar or usage because he grew up in location X or in circumstances Y is belittling and almost dismissive. It’s like saying that they are incapable of learning the correct and accepted rules of grammar and usage, so why even expect it of them. That’s a shame.
Are colloquialisms fine and even fun? Sure. I grew up in the South and it wasn’t until grad school that I realized “might could” was improper. (As in, “I might could get there by 5.”) I still use the phrase at times but not in professional conversation or in professional writing. I grew up saying it. I learned it was incorrect. I stopped saying it. Why is that hard or wrong? (I’m also a fan of “fixin’ to” do something, but again – just a colloquialism.)
Now, correcting another person’s grammar is an entirely different issue. I would not do that (unless it’s my children’s) because it is usually degrading and mean. But, that doesn’t mean a person shouldn’t try to learn correct grammar and usage and realize that they’re going to sound less intelligent if they don’t. Because there are absolutes in grammar. (Nevertheless, it’s fine to purposefully deviate from the rules. See how I used a sentence fragment before this parenthetical? Purposeful. A choice. That doesn’t make it wrong to teach a person that a sentence must contain a subject and a verb. )
We may not disagree so much, Becky.
I would just ask you why it has to be an issue of improper or incorrect? Why can’t it just be 2 different dialects that you use at different times to accomplish different things?
The Japanese language is like this.
There is a more formal, “higher” language used for business, diplomacy, etc. etc.
There are more colloquial forms between peers (even in business) and regional colloquialisms.
And there is another level of language that functions differently grammatically then within your closest/most intimate interpersonal peer relationships.
In other words you could say:
Hello, my name is ________
I would like to take you to dinner. many different ways.
If you really don’t know the structures of the grammar you’d never know you were saying the same thing.
How do we seem to think that we attained our language in the first place? Was it not that languages and dialects merged to form what we have today? Enjoy the diversity.
I agree. There’s too much subjectivity involved in in trying to define one set of rules. Who makes the rules? But, letting my kids make up their own dialect which they would use exclusively would be going too far.
I love the vernacular that Abraham mentions. Different cultural groups come up with phrases that wonderfully communicate ideas or emotions. I’d hate to see us chalk that up as bad grammar and desire to get rid of it. Music, poetry, and conversation would be much less diverse–and more boring, as a whole.
Thanks for the conversation, Abraham. I’m enjoying being pressed. <a href=”http://thefoolsgold.net/2008/09/04/20-common-grammar-mistakes/#comments”Here is my latest contribution.
Sorry the link didn’t come out right. I’m a neanderthal when it comes to html code. Let’s try again.
I’m diggin ya dawg
Would you call this “indirect blogging”? Obviously those thoughts couldn’t be summarized in 22 words or less… haha!
I agree with you – I used to take pride in my grammatical bigotry, but I’m now learning to appreciate the wonderful diversity within the English language.
In dialects, nothing is good or bad but that thinking makes it so. I strongly support the teaching of standard English for kids with dialects that are looked down upon, but if people think that Ozark or Appalachian English is dirty and immoral, that’s their own darn problem.
for “practical” reasons, like getting jobs and avoiding prejudices and having a lingua franca (lingua ingla?) among English speakers, some kind of standard English should be taught in schools, perhaps more thoroughly than it is now. but NOT over-against other dialects by saying that it is THE English and all other Englishes (i swear it’s a word) are “wrong.” i’d love to see teachers and other gatekeepers admit that “standard” English is more than somewhat arbitrary and that, though important, it’s just something you need to get by, rather than touting it as the greatest thing ever to happen to the world like some kind of Henry Higgins.
just to show in good fun that even the gatekeepers don’t always get things right (don’t know if you’ve seen this but i thought you might enjoy it):
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/food-magazine-typo-poisons-sweden/index.html
plus
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/dept-of-oops/
& then
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/pasties-pasties-everywhere/
Language is simply fascinating. What I particularly find interesting is how some of English’s dirtiest and “bad” words have Anglo-Saxon origins while their French counterparts are consider the norm. Stupid Norman conquest creating bad words out of thin air. Observe the violence inherent in the system.
Abraham,
As it relates to communicating to a broad, or perhaps undefined audience, doesn’t there need to be some kind of objective standard?
It’s not clear to me what the problem is with the idea of an objective formal standard. In actuality, it seems to me that it would be a serious problem if there weren’t such an objective standard. Think of contracts, licensing, laws and reporting. Think of the excuse “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Think of all the class-action lawyers, politically driven media outlets, spin-masters and politicians in the world.
Lack of an accepted “global” standard or towards the ‘enforcement’ of said standard (even by using definite and simple terms such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’) would lead to obfuscation and perfidy without a reasonable level of accountability. I don’t see the connection between ‘good’/’bad’ as it relates to an objective standard with prejudice.
No disrespect intended, I’m definitely a pleb and have learned a good bit from reading your online writings, but your statement above seems to be too heavy in platitudes and too light in practical objectivity.
As it relates to the idea of people being “annoyed” with improper English in common personal use, then, unless you’re talking about your own children, never-mind. I would agree. What difference does one’s personal choice of communication make so long as the thought or idea is understood properly?
Okay, now I’ll stand by to be corrected…
Not all grammar is neutral, nor are all grammatical distinctions arbitrary. Some certainly are, but not all.
For example, use of “gonna” instead of “going to,” or “thems is” instead of “they are” may reflect the dialect one prefers to use in a given situation. Any conventions condemning their use, especially in informal situations, is more or less arbitrary and useless, as you point out. Same with split infinitives and ending a sentence with a preposition (and incomplete sentences). However, some grammatical constructions, such as dangling modifiers, are frankly unclear and can lead to misunderstanding. It may well be that your hearers/readers understand you perfectly because of context or shared dialect. But others won’t. A Minnesotan who wants you to stop feeding the dog under the table will have to pause several long moments and parse out a New Yorker’s request, “Will you knock it off with the dog and your hand and the table and you’re feedin’ him under it?”
When speaking or writing informally or among friends, rules were meant to be broken. When speaking or writing formally to a diverse audience, conventions help assure mutual intelligibility.
I’m a teacher, and I’ll gladly admit that, Carissa.
A couple of words I find really useful with my students are convention and community. As in, “Most of what we’re working on here are the conventions of this or that community.”
At some level, most of them want in to academic/professional/formal adult circles. So the rules can be “arbitrary” while the teaching of them is not.
Cheers, KP
Ha. Matt commented while I typed. Well-said.
KP
Yeah, everything is really just coming down to a one-nation world. We all want the same language, same ethnicity, same government, same, currency, same policies, same internet standards, and same rights for everyone. So, why not have one united language with no variation? It is bound to happen as we near the end times. Why not help the world-rulers out?
Since when is “bad” English a dialect? Let’s be honest, bad English isn’t the language of a subculture, it is the sign of the ignorance of our culture in general.
With that said, language isn’t static. It is dynamic and in a constant state of change (despite the good intentions of our beloved Noah Webster). But still, when someone says “Me be go’n to the store” I think it is fair to say that this may not be an example of the legitimate movement of language in transition, but rather some kid who really, really needs to pay more attention in English class.
Or maybe I’m just being “elitist” and not honoring an equally legitimate subculture. In that case, the other kids in my remedial junior high class and I were totally being screwed over by the intellectual bourgeoisie. Where is Marx when you need a little liberation?
JG Writes at the other blog: “Abraham oddly seems to be advocating a form of language anarchy. If there are no set standards, and the English language can take ANY form, then no true communication is possible.”
Which, interestingly enough, is what is usually happening whenever language is undergoing a shift that INCREASES its communicative power.
The Norman Invasion, the wealth of American coinages and usage adding to British English, the new vocabulary of the technological upheaval, the melting pot of grammarS and vocabulary at a time of mass immigration.
“As it relates to communicating to a broad, or perhaps undefined audience, doesn’t there need to be some kind of objective standard?”
Well, the whole point is that it is not an OBJECTIVE standard but a SUBJECTIVE standard. As long as you recognize that a grammatical standard is subjective and not objective, teaching a common grammar can be very helpful in some circumstances. It is the elevation to the subjective standard of the dominant grammar that is so wrong.
John G writes … a lot.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing “wrong” wtih: “Me be go’n to the store.” You know exactly what he means.
It is non-standard. It may not serve that student well not to learn standard English. Just like it may not serve an Hispanic child whose first langauge is Spanish not to learn standard English. But that doesn’t mean that Spanish or ‘ebonics’ (I hate the word, but for lack of a better one, I’ll use it) is wrong in any way. And those patterns of speech both have and will continue to feed into our language.
Anyone who thinks this is a matter of right and wrong should read Ruby K. Payne’s A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING POVERTY. I would almost go so far as to say that calling a non-standard dialect “wrong” or “bad” English is to participate in the perpetuation of injustice.
I am, by the way, an English teacher. I teach standard grammar, but I explain it to my white, suburban-dwelling middle schoolers in exactly these terms.
In my opinion, the problem with not having a standard set of grammatical rules is the potential for miscommunication.
And just because we’re trying to correct someone who’s grammatically wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean we look down on them.
I’m a pathologist and have to carefully phrase writen reports on surgical specimens every day. If I’m not careful with grammar or if there’s no grammatical standards, the chances of my releasing an ambiguous diagnosis are much greater.
And can you imagine how hard (impossible?) it would be to translate the Scriptures if there were no rules of grammar?
Good point!
I looked up the definition of ‘dialect’ because, let me be completely honest, I disagree with you, Abraham, (I think) but I am not sure what it is that specifically bothers me. I think that my disagreement might begin to be explained if we agree on this definition (which I think is pretty much what you are using):
“A regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: Cockney is a dialect of English.”
The part that strikes me is the part that says “…differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern…”
Why? Because this very definition draws attention to the fact that there is a standard. Anything else is some kind of corruption. (The fact that an agreed-upon format is taught in schools does set a right and wrong usage standard but “Right” and “Wrong” are not simply descriptive of morality. I don’t think anyone thinks it is immoral to say “I’m fixin’ to go to the sto’ today” (though it may INDICATE where someone is from and/or show how formally they view their present conversation.)
That said, perhaps we agree on one thing, language is fairly fluid and can be understood in various forms, even the corrupted ones. Sometimes. And being understood is very important. However, while agreed-on language rules may not carry the importance of moral absolutes, we don’t want to rely on sloppy grammar to convey them in print. Do we?
Also, isn’t it elitist to say that someone is from the “wrong side of the tracks?” Or maybe that is what you were saying?
“Because this very definition draws attention to the fact that there is a standard. Anything else is some kind of corruption. ”
Just because the metric system is not standard in the United States does not mean that using the metric system in the united states is a ‘corruption.’
The standard, while useful and necessary, is arbitrary.
“And can you imagine how hard (impossible?) it would be to translate the Scriptures if there were no rules of grammar?”
Like when the rules of our grammar do not correspond to the rules of greek grammar? You’re right. Gosh. We might get things ‘wrong’ in translation just because we dont’ have the same grammar. What would we do then?
Sarcasm aside (hopefully gentle sarcasm) the point is that our grammar is not some secure (someone used the word ‘transcendent’ for God’s sake) enlightenment, rationalist uber-linguistics.
Grammar is at base descriptive not proscriptive, it is proscriptive by convention and for particular ends.
From Don Quixote:
‘I’ve had a word with the wife, sir, and she’s designed to letting me go wherever you want to take me.’
‘Resigned is what you should say, Sancho,’ said Don Quixote, ‘not designed.’
‘If I remember rightly,’ Sancho replied, ‘I’ve already asked you once or twice not to correct my words, if you understand what I mean by them–and if you don’t understand, you can always say, “Sancho, you devil, I don’t understand you,” and if I still don’t make my meaning clear you can correct me, because I am so practible…’
….’I bet, said Sancho, ‘you knew exactly what I meant from the start, but you wanted to ruffle me so as to make me put my foot in it another few hundred times.’
And later:
‘I’m not so ungrateful or so worried about a farthing or two here and there that I’d oppose the income from the island being totted up and stopped from my wages, in due abortion.’
‘Sometimes, friend Sancho’ Don Quixote replied, ‘a proportion might be preferable to an abortion.’
‘Yes, I know what you mean,’ said Sancho. ‘I bet I ought to have said proportion not abortion–but it doesn’t matter you see, because you understood me.’
Part 2, Chapter 7
Thanks Abraham for your great thoughts on language. I’m a first time poster but long time reader.
I have a question though. Where did the phrase “used to” come from? As in “I used to play baseball.” What I’m actually saying is “There was a time in the past that I played baseball”. How did the phrase “used to” come to mean that?! Any insight?
Myrddin,
Did you think I was saying I didn’t agree that these variations are, in fact, dialects? I don’t disagree with that statement. I simply used the definition to make sure we were on the same page. (After all, Abraham could have been speaking in a different dialect)
But, in response to your rather mocking retort:
Not using the metric system in the United states is not a corruption of anything. Like Speaking English here when in Russia they speak Russian is not a corruption of Russian. Same thoughts, different words. The difference is LANGUAGE–not dialect. You gave yourself away when you used the word “system”; of course, this is just another way of saying, “standard”.
A standard unifies and makes it easier on everyone. This is why I think it is good (in a non-moral sense) to teach the standards in language but not to require by law the strict use of it.
I also would agree with Abraham that to look down on someone who can’t speak up to my grammar level is wrong. (morally)
I would also be blind if I didn’t admit that it might be an indicator of “which side of the tracks” someone may have grown up on. That said, poor grammar can limit you professionally. But good grammar doesn’t make any promises either.
Melissa.
First of all, my reply (to you) wasn’t meant to be be mocking in the least, so for any offense I apologize. I was simply making an analogy in respect to your use of the word ‘corrupt.’ ABSOLUTELY no sarcasm intended.
Given the rest or your reply, in fact, it seems that we agree … EXCEPT for your use of the word ‘corruption.’
Not even technically speaking is a dialect a ‘corruption’ of a ‘standard.’ That’s part of the myth that leads to (but does not necessarily imply) the judgment you also wish to avoid. It’s not like there was an uber-English which gradually degraded into corrupt dialects but was preserved in standard English. That is just not hte way it works.
In a very real way, standard English is nothing more or less than the dominant dialect.
And again, I have no problem with there being a dominant dialect and it being taught. Only with the idea that other dialects are somehow ‘corruptions.’
Not using the metric system in the United states is not a corruption of anything. Like Speaking English here when in Russia they speak Russian is not a corruption of Russian. Same thoughts, different words. The difference is LANGUAGE–not dialect. You gave yourself away when you used the word “system”; of course, this is just another way of saying, “standard”.
I think that a lot of the disagreement comes from the weight of words like, “Good”, “bad”, “corrupt”, and “judge.” all words that are not so bad once the moral aspect is removed.
“In a very real way, standard English is nothing more or less than the dominant dialect.”
I agree with this statement. And this is why I mostly chose to identify it with the word “standard”.
I guess the real question for me is this:
If a teenage boy in the inner city is incapable (let’s say due to lack of school) of speaking “normative English” (in the sense of the dominant, albeit subjective, standard currently (or at least previously) taught in college English classes), and is therefore unable to communicate effectively in the cultural marketplace, is this a positive state of affairs for the young man?
Should we simply embrace his language style? Certainly it communicates meaning. And, unless one is an English zealot, we can perceive a beauty of expression in his form of language. However, he certainly will have great difficulty getting a job, and since his language style stems from a lack of education there will be many ideas his language style will prohibit him from grasping, let alone communicating–many ideas which, for those living in our modern era, are important for life.
Conversely, should we seek to stamp his language style out and “look down” on it as the vulgar utterings of the uneducated? Hopefully not.
It seems there is much reaction to the terms “good English” and “bad English”–as if those terms somehow referred to moral categories or indicated some sort of intrinsic personal superiority.
Oddly though, those crying for a purely subjective outlook on language fail by their own logic the moment they say it is wrong for us to use such terms. If language outlook is truly subjective, then it is perfectly appropriate for those who believe in an English standard to speak so. The subjectivity of the situation demands that proponents of an English standard use non-subjective language. But, if they are forbidden to use non-subjective language, then are the proponents of the subjectivity of language truly being consistent? It seems not. Their own logic works against them.
Simply put, this is simply postmodernism’s influence upon language theory (actually, this is where postmodernism emerged). Little more than an internally incoherent system that seeks to reject all forms of philosophical foundationalism. The end result is absurdity and chaos.
Myrddin,
You claim that the phrase “Me be a’going to the store” is perfectly appropriate English because it communicates its meaning.
Ahhhhh, but notice the standard YOU’ve imposed. It is only appropriate, in your definition, because you can understand its meaning. What if you couldn’t? Would it still be appropriate? If not, are you allowing your subjective bias to take over? Are you imposing an objective standard as a criteria to determine what is and what is not appropriate? And if so, who gets to determine this standard? And if you can impose this standard, is there no room to impose other standards?
What if the young man said “Me goed coming be the store? Is this now inappropriate English since its meaning is not readily understandable? If it is inappropriate English, you have become a proponent of standard English–a language Elitist! If it is perfectly appropriate, then I admire your consistency–but welcome to the world of meaninglessness.
Help me understand your point better. Also, just to be state what hopefully is obvious, I am engaging in this conversation with love and respect for you and all else to who participate. Sometimes when we concentrate so hard on clarifying our points, we fail to clarify our hearts. Blessings!
What a great discussion.
I’ll just comment on one tiny facet and keep reading and learning from all of you.
It seems to me that good grammar usage (written or spoken) is like a healthy use of humor: humor well done is usually a bounce off the edge of some truth.
I can enjoy an occasional fudging of grammar or word choice that might violate the rules if there is some implied acknowledgment of what the rules are.
Complete ignorance or laziness seems to end up distracting from communication and a kind of perverse price as in “I don’t have to follow the rules. I’ve evolved beyond that.”
There are almost daily examples on our regional television news (“brother-in-laws” instead of brothers-in-law, e.g.) and then the everpresent “it’s” instead of “its”.
Oh well.
The biggest problem in writing even these brief comments is that now I’m petrified I’ve made some mistake in grammar or spelling!!!!
Folks, this blog is a treasure! The clear sharing of thoughts, ideas, blessings, etc. is so refreshing.
See! I DID make a mistake!!!….in paragraph 5 I meant to say “perverse pride”–not “perverse price”! I haven’t recovered from the fact that my husband filled the truck today and the gas station got $126 of our American dollars!
Okay. This post really bothered me and I’ve been racking my brain on this concept for the last week, but I finally have something to say. Actually, a lot to say. Sorry.
Here goes:
At the risk of using a rather trite example, I think I can rightly say that Hitler was a “good” speaker and Shaquille O’Neil is a “bad” speaker, or at least a less “good” one. By this I mean that Hitler (or FDR or MLK, Jr., if you like) was a better, more effective communicator than Shaq, and I don’t think there is any problem in this kind of judgment until I say that one is a better person for being better skilled.
It is my stance that what makes grammar “good” grammar is its level of clarity. If the purpose of language is communication, then the purpose of grammar is effective communication. (Am I making too many assumptions here?) If one particular strain of grammar, or “dialect,” lends itself to more clarity, then I think there is no problem calling that strain “better” than the other(s) without judging the users of the “worse” (less lucid) strains. I, personally, tend to think the rules of standardized grammar (for American English, at least; I’m not too familiar with any other languages) allow for the most clarity. Keeping with the argument that “good” grammar is clear grammar, however, I do think that following each of the rules blindly is unnecessary. Example: As much as I would like everyone to use “none” as a singular noun, using it as a plural will rarely cause confusion and thus calling it “bad” grammar would, I think, be “baseless and prejudiced.”
In filmmaking, there is a very basic rule or standard to which the vast majority of scenes in “professional” films conform, called the 180 Degree Rule. It prescribes keeping all sequential angles of a particular subject within 180 degrees of each other. The conventional wisdom here is that if, in a scene, you have two actors having a conversation, you keep the camera on one side of them for each angle change; switching to an angle on the opposite side can be disorienting and distracting to the viewer. Now, to follow this rule no matter what would be foolish, for there are indeed “good” (effective) violations of this rule. It can either be done in a way that isn’t distracting – usually by keeping some very clear, orienting landmark in both angles – or in a way that purposefully disorients and adds to the mood. But most filmmakers who violate this guideline do so out of ignorance or oversight – and to poor effect. It is, in my opinion, accurate – and not elitist – to label this as “poor” or “bad” film editing, which interestingly is often referred to as a film’s visual punctuation. Examples abound in music and film (and, I venture, in all art forms), but the main point is that often when the standards aren’t followed, either due to lack of knowledge/skill or failed artistic ambition, the results are less than stellar. I am by no means saying that only formulaic, rule-conforming works of art can be considered “good,” but we have all walked out of a theatre or removed a pair of headphones and said, “Wow, that was bad.” In so doing, we have not necessarily pronounced a moral judgment on the artist or looked down on him from our elitist perch, but rather stated simply that it was a poor/ineffective/bad use of the medium. Even in such an arena of subjectivity as art, to remove the words “good” and “bad” from our vocabulary would be to succumb to relativism and remove meaning from our appraisals.
Certainly, it is prejudiced to call certain schools of thought “worse” or “bad,” simply because they are different than the school to which we subscribe. But that doesn’t mean flaws don’t exist and that one school cannot be with less flaws or more virtues than another.
The entirety of what I’m claiming here, of course, rests on the assumption I made earlier that the purpose of grammar is effective communication – or, to be more specific, communication that leaves as little room for misinterpretation as possible. Now, I do think grammar can be used as a poetical or rhetorical tool, but not at the expense of misconstruing meaning. I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong, but for the moment I don’t see how this assumption is fallacious.