Oct 23, 2008
These kinds of books are sad: English serves you. You don’t serve English.
The attitude attending books like these makes fluent speakers feel unwarranted linguistic anxiety, thus numbing the enthusiasm that language ought to enliven.
* * * * *
See: I think you are creating category conflicts where there are none, Abraham.
You are trying to pit “fluent” against some kind of “grammaticism”, but let’s be serious for a moment about this juxtaposition.
Let’s imagine I write this statement:
He wash him car with me sponge.
And you, a day later in your neighborhood, posting here at 22words, write:
He washes his car with my sponge.
Now, the fluent reader probably could decipher both statements, right? But the fluent writer would be more likely the write the second one — because that second statement is composed of fluent uses of things like subject/verb agreement and use of possessive pronouns.
The question ultimately comes to what constitutes fluency, and I think that while m-w.com would define the word as “the state of being capable of using a language easily and accurately,” the fluent language user is able to cross the bridge between standard and non-standard usage because he understand the standard well enough to grasp the exceptions and the dialectic innovations.
You know that there is a difference between the rule book and actually playing football. You cannot play football without the rule book — but you don’t actually have to have a rule book on the field to know the difference between a pro-bowler and a benchwarmer.
It comes down to prescriptive grammar versus descriptive grammar.
To some degree, I agree with Frank. Society has some rules that define standard grammar (Chicago Manual of Style, for instance.) We have to play by the rules in our formal writing.
But informally, dude, who cares bout roolz? Language play’s just 2 much fun, ain’t it?
It’s a bit intimidating following Frank’s high-falutin’ comment, but I’ll just say that you might both appreciate the book “Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation”.
It’s not a direct connection to this, but it’s close. And my wife and some friends have read it, and they seemed to like it.
If anyone has read it and sees a connection I’d be interested in their thoughts. Abraham? Seems right up your alley.
The funny thing is that the you know the only ones buying, and reading these books are people who are really good at grammar already.
A few probably get them so that they can perfect their already good grammar. Many get a book like this so that they can show themselves just how good at grammar they are and feel superior to the foolish ones out there that make all of these mistakes.
Chris, that’s is so on the money.
Great point.
I’m tracking with you on some level when you talk about these language issues, but it always makes me wonder how consistent one could be with the idea that “standard” grammar, word usage, spelling, etc. doesn’t really exist.
I wonder, for example: When Orison wants to learn how to write his name (maybe he already does), will you tell him how to spell it? If so, why? Would you ask him how he wants to spell it, or tell him it doesn’t really matter how he spells it as long as people understand him?
Likewise, when he says things like “He wash him car with me sponge,” do you “correct” his grammar? If so, why? When he starts writing papers and gets its/it’s wrong, will you correct that? If so, why?
Like I said, I’m with you on the big picture: language is not something that’s arbitrarily fixed in time; it evolves & changes; today’s “mistake” becomes tomorrow’s standard. But I wonder how far you can really run that rabbit in daily practice.
You’re good at definitions and boundaries and categories and conflicts, Frank, but you might have missed Abraham’s point completely.
Seems to me he’s speaking to something much more personal, relational, emotional about how discouraging it is to be told over and over again, “You’re wrong.”
(Especially in matters when wrongness and the consequences of “doing wrong” are so fluid…)
Warmly,
KP
Would I be breaking the rules here at twentytwowords.com if my comment about a blog posting is longer than the posting itself?
Andrew, no rules but peace and love in the comments here.
Jake, I would never say there is no standard. But the standard is how native speakers speak, not how a few authors and dictionary editors say we should.
And this standard is based on an innate sense of grammar. This is why it is absolutely impossible that Orison or any other fluent speaker of our dialect of English would say, “He wash him car with me sponge.”
There’s more to say, but, as you know I bring this up a lot, so what I don’t say here will surely come up again later.
Thanks for reading!
Andrew, I was just thinking the same thing myself. On the topic, is my pet peeve of borrow/lend in Abraham’s crosshairs?
…and yet beautifully written prose, that says well exactly what it means, is so inspiring and attractive. Doesn’t this come back to a post of a long time ago about punctuating worship songs: http://twentytwowords.com/2008/06/23/punctuate-your-powerpoint-people-ambiguity-in-this-weekends-church-service/
Ahh, I see. Grammatical elitism, not grammatical standards, is the issue. Nice nuance. So in your view, English teachers would guide students based on observation of what is happening in common usage, not what should be according to the “rules.” A la Marcus’ (Marcus’s?) prescriptive/descriptive distinction above. If that’s close to what you mean I think I like it.
Frank said, “You cannot play football without the rule book — but you don’t actually have to have a rule book on the field to know the difference between a pro-bowler and a benchwarmer.”
And let’s face it….if Frank didn’t have a good grasp of the conventions of the English language, we’d all be sitting here wondering how poor a bowler one would have to be to earn the role of “benchwarmer.”
Ha! Well-played, Carol, well-played.
You left out my favorite:
Kate L. Turabian’s
A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations
Sixth Edition
The more you serve English, the better it will serve you.
These English/grammar posts and comments make my head hurt. But it’s a good hurt, I think. Thanks for the pain – keep ‘em coming.
Books like that remind me of what Yogi Berra said, “No one goes to that restaurant anymore; it’s too crowded.”
Connection (weak?): You shouldn’t make the same grammatical “mistakes” that have become “common” enough to English speakers that I am writing a book about them.
Is there a difference between speech and writing? What if a native speaker’s writing is horrible and they’re aware of it? Wouldn’t these books be appropriate?
I’m a missionary in Perú and when I speak my Spanish is far from native (I’ve only be here a year) but overall I can write MUCH better than the native speakers here. Often their writing consists of no punctuation and run on sentences. Rarely is there more than 1 or 2 sentences in a paragraph that takes up half a page. This goes for any non-major publication/newspaper as well.
I would say this is fine since everyone here writes like this, but even for them it is often difficult to understand what someone the person is saying.
excuse my typo…
what the person is saying
I wonder how much the Biblical text depends on correct Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek grammar in revealing God’s word? Or again, how much does correct grammar effect the accurate presentation and reception of the gospel to the ones trying to read and understand it?
Even in that post I made a mistake by using the nominal morphology “effect” when I should have used the verbal morphology “affect”. But you all probably just noticed the spelling error and read my sentence in light of what I had to have meant for the sentence to be decipherable.
Grammar was never my strong point. Just read my blog and you will see. I mean really…just talk folks.
KP –
If Abraham’s metapoint about grammar is that it’s just another form of legalism whiuch we use to do to each other what legalism does to us, I have missed that completely, and I owe himn a massive apology for being vexed by his apparent obsession with this subject. I thought his point was something not as nuanced.
If that was in fact your point, young Abraham, I stand abashed. Let me know if that’s what you really meant.
These types of books remind me of the violence inherent in the system and that sometimes I feel really repressed.
I am opposed to proscriptive English grammars like this, but I have to say, considering the absolutely lack of understanding many people have of ‘correct English’, say, for use in academic papers or that you see in advertising or in print media, I wonder that if schools taught grammar and English properly, there wouldn’t be a need for these books.
the one area in which i disagree: WORD CHOICE.
words are imperfect. they are (to be rather tillichian) SYMBOLS of something greater. they aren’t the actual THING that they stand for. and because of this, they are one of the biggest roadblocks to clear communication.
picking the RIGHT word — so that you get to say exactly what you mean, as close as you can, and so that your audience understands exactly what you mean, as close as they can — is of utmost importance.
As to the rest here, it’s a dodge to say “well, no fluent speaker of our dialect would say that.” What’s at stake here — linguistically, not morally or ethically — is that the fluent speaker of English can read both sentences and understand that they are saying the same thing — one by obeying the rules of the language, and the other by obeying as many of the rules as he understands.
For those who haven’t noticed, I’m a horrible typist and perhaps a worse speller. It is the bane of my existence, this one/two punch of unintentional non-conformity. But the problem is my shortfall and not the limits of keyboards, English, and all lexicons.
Karsten’s friendly chiding of me aside, as I have read Abraham’s complaints on this subject as editorial in nature — that his role as an editor has exasperated him sufficiently to seek something more apparently-generous than standard style-sheets and style guides allow.
I say good for him — I just don’t think that establishing an informal style is ultimately any more or less, um, editorial than the grammar wonks are when they demand placement of the preposition. If Abraham would reject “He wash him car with me sponge” (which any 3-yr-old might say) as fluent and therefore acceptable, he has set boudaries. He is proscribing some kind of grammatical rule book.
Jess –
At last a person of insight has entered into this discussion.
Bloody peasant.
Wouldn’t one of the benefits of pursuing excellent grammar, though, be for the aid of non-fluent readers? I currently help tutor some students online who have English as their second language; I imagine I could throw them for a loop if I didn’t stick to “correct” grammar and spelling in my emails. I’m thinking especially of commonly misused words (lose/loose, unless/lest, etc) and misspellings, where if they had to look them up in their dictionary they wouldn’t be able to understand what I was trying to say. I’ve already had to help “interpret” a section of a book they were reading, because the author used run-on sentences. They got lost trying to keep up with his winding train of thought.
I think being OCD about grammar is unnecessary, and I think browbeating non-professional writers for incorrect grammar is silly. But I think seeking to write with correct grammar is probably the best way to reach the broadest audience of people of various levels of fluidity in English. :)
The problem is that the issue of norming grammar to a particular dominant dialect (which I do support and do teach and do enjoy teaching) issue of socio-economic justice (and maybe even racial justice) — if not approached very carefully.
Whenever we norm anything to a standard that is practiced easily and naturally by the dominant culture (which, again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t) we run the risk of allowing that ‘norm’ to jump categories and become a sign of intellectual, moral or cultural superiority or even tyranny.
Imagine a set of Grammar snobs standing around at a cocktail party:
“Isn’t it terrible what’s happening to the English language!”
“Have you heard the way those football players speak?”
“Except for so-and-so. Now there’s an articulate African-American.”
“Where is our country going to?”
I don’t want any part of the tone of that conversation and I fear it all too often arises from failing to establish proper barriers between normative and superior.
Oh. My. Goodness.
I almost agreed with Myrddin. That is close enough for horseshoes, people.
With that, I ask you all in all seriousness to pray for young Bodie Butler who is being airlifted tonight for medical treatment. He’s a little one, and he needs the Great Physician tonight.
I think precision and accuracy in language are vital while at the same time maintaining a sense of humility and grace towards others.
Almost agreed????? Well, that is almost high praise! Next thing you know we’ll be co-sponsoring a blog.
More seriously, I will pray for Bodie. I don’t know the circumstances but may the Lord heal him.
Anybody listen to Grammar Girl’s podcast? I’m hit or miss but I like her take on language a lot; even though she’s “Grammar Girl,” she is pretty middle-of-the-road on language issues. If you haven’t heard her, you might want to give it a shot. http://www.qdnow.com
i tried not to comment for a change, but. well. i failed.
i think it’s a shame that most of the reason people “confuse and misuse” words is that they’re trying to sound smart, precisely because of the external pressure applied by books like these (and the people who write them)! what a racket. we’re set up for failure, because we’re told from early on that our God-given language instinct isn’t enough.
(i’m mainly talking about the spoken word here. with the written word, artificial rules may have more of a place, because writing is an artificial practice. we weren’t born knowing how to write. we were born knowing how to speak.)
In some situations we are respected less if our writing or speech has grammatical errors (or if our writing has spelling and punctuation errors). In those cases our message will be less likely to be accepted, as well. Whether or not this is right, it is just the way things are. There was a post at Robust Writing about this within the last couple of weeks, too.
So I think that these books are good reference tools to use when we must write for a situation like that.
For many other situations, I think it is important to be able to relax and not have to worry about being perfect. (Although I think that you would disagree with the idea that there is a “perfect” standard.)
For my school students who resist learning “the rules” because they think that they are not important, I try to tell them that in many cases it IS important how you present yourself and your message. You never know what kind of position that God is going to put you in, so you should study these things to prepare for whatever may come up.
I used to think that if a student isn’t planning to be a ______________ (fill in whatever occupation), that certain things were not as important for them. Now 30 years later, I’m seeing that our society has changed, and I see how God has directed lives in ways they never expected. It has helped immensely for those who studied hard for things they never expected to use again, and it has been a hardship for those who haven’t.
We might not like the world we have to live in, and it is good to work to change attitudes and policies that should be changed when we can, but at the same time prepare for those situations that we will not be able to change.
I am an ESL teacher(English as a Second Language) teacher to adults. I teach grammar to beginning students and higher levels. I always emphasize to them when teaching grammar lessons, that there is a difference between “formal” language and “common” everyday language. While one thing may be grammatically correct, they will not hear Americans using it that way due to our common use of the spoken word in daily life. I also tell them that when they read in English, the language will be formal.
One good example of the written word that takes license with formal language to the vernacular of the day and region, is To Kill A Mockingbird. And reading Jane Austen is quite difficult with the language of her time.
From the psychological viewpoint, we do judge others by their language and how they appear to us. We get a feeling of superiority when others we consider educated make mistakes in speaking and writing. I believe we don’t expect perfection from people we don’t think are as educated as we are. That feeling of “I am better than you” comes from our need to find self esteem and be validated as worthy. Probably in all reality, of course, a result of the fall. Remember that Satan used language to entice Eve, and her feelings of self worth.
Myrddin,
I agree with everything you said, but I’m taking it one step further in this post.
The attitude of constant linguistic correctiveness not only makes non-standard-English speakers feel insecure, it does the same to standard English speakers.
Our whole system of teaching English trains kids up to think they don’t know they’re own language. How can that be helpful?
It would be like constantly telling your 13-year-old daughter how she could be prettier.
Abraham:
The question is not whether what people are doing with their language is “beautiful” or not — because let’s face it: most of what people are doing with language today is either utilitarian (business communication) or scandalous (every form of media/entertainment). You wouldn’t worry about whether your daughter was “beautiful” or not if she was wearing trash bags for dresses because she didn’t know any better.
The right analogy here is a sport analogy, not a self-esteem analogy or a parental-approval analogy. I mean this: boys will instinctively play with balls and sticks. If you put 4 boys on a flat piece of land with two sticks and a ball, they will invent a game. They can’t help themselves.
But the truth is that they will abandon that game when it is clearly pointless because it gets “boring”. Now, if you teach them how to instead play baseball or cricket, they will never want to leave the field — they’ll play until it’s too dark to play anymore.
And more to the point: if their dads coach them to show them how the rules actually make the game more meaningful and therefore more fun, over time the play moves from mere exhuberance to craft to art — for those who have the skill, of course to make the jump from craft to art.
That doesn’t make the mere fun-havers any more or less “beautiful”. But it doesn’t make an imagination game in which the balls become fire darts or evil weevils baseball.
And this is the case with grammar, with language as a whole: the shame comes when one realizes that people who actually speak well and write well are recognized as informed and trustworthy as opposed to ignorant. It happens in every business situation, and it happens in interpersonal interactions all the time: people who speak better English and write better English are better-respected.
If the reason why is “snobbery”, then every person is a snob — because every person thinks this way. Rather, I think, it is because anyone can recognize the difference between someone who is seeking to say what he means and someone who is only blurting out what he is thinking using any ol’ word handy.
More random thoughts on language:
The family of the husband of my daughter’s Spanish teacher is from Colombia where people supposedly consider themselves “guardians of good Spanish.” All of her husband’s siblings (and he, as well) have lost their Spanish because they were so afraid of speaking/writing incorrectly. They just stopped speaking Spanish.
In Spanish, Ustedes is used instead of es for speaking to people you don’t know, or people who are your superiors (teachers, etc.). BUT in the Spanish Bible es is used with references to God (Tu es–you are) because God wants us to bring us closer to him:)
Language should be taught the way Suzuki piano (and violin) is taught (Suzuki piano is actually taught the way language is NATURALLY learned). Now this is a master’s thesis topic worth considering.
I wonder why the suzuki method places a child in the position of imitating something she could have never invent for herself? Is it because she isn’t beautiful?
I’m going to think about that during my 4-hour drive home today.
Bad Grammar is like profanity. It gives the reader an excuse to ignore your message, and focus instead on the way you express it. There is a verbose commenter here who I have issues with. I find myself looking at the mistakes he makes, rather than the substance of his message.
I like your sticks’n'balls analogy, Frank.
You’re describing the way things *should* be, though, and Abraham is calling out the way things are.
Look at the book covers he posted–those are the dads marching on to the field, whipping out scorecards, marking them E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, smacking crotches with bats to see whose cup isn’t straight, taking every boy painfully by the wrists, calling them, %&#@!!in’ confused, error-prone, alligator-armed, concrete-mitted, low-ceilinged, rookie-league wash-outs.
They’re not wrong, necessarily, just bad coaches.
And even if they’re gentler about their impatience, one of those boys is going to walk away, sign a contract with Boston, and turn into Big Papi.
Whee! It’s fun wringing every drip out of a good analogy.
Gratuitously,
KP
What bothers me even more about linguistic correctiveness (it doesn’t even have to be constant) is how the correcter typically fails to notice that they don’t consistently abide by their own false rules of grammar.
Of course, “they” and “their” are used above in their singular sense. I wonder how many of the books pictured would single that out as a “common English error.”
Huh, it’s actually a pronoun reference ambiguity, since I meant the impatience of the coaches.
Still, I bet you’re right about those books.
KP
I only brought up the Suzuki method because it is different than many music method books that teach music kind of like most text books teach English. It treats music as a language and teaches it the way children learn language. The baby hears people speaking, eventually copies the sounds, and eventually learns to speak. Once the child has developed a good speaking vocabulary, we teach them to read and write.
Often, though, when kids get to school there is a lot more correcting and some would say even criticizing. But the Suzuki method is, at least it is supposed to be, very nurturing and encouraging. Traditional methods can be nurturing and encouraging, too. And I think we can teach English in an encouraging way, as well. A lot depends on the teacher.
I do think it would be very interesting to study the possibility of teaching writing the way Suzuki teachers teach music.
( I hope I am not the verbose commenter whose grammatical mistakes are like profanity. I suspect I might be because I am wordy. I confess I don’t try to be perfect when blogging. Time is so short, I just don’t take the time to polish.)
KP,
I was actually referring to the use of “they” and “their” in my own comment.
I’m the one making ambiguous references, it seems. Not you. Sorry about that.
Rob
I just don’t get the big deal. I’m fine with “elites” defining grammar rules. Especially since they do, in time, bend to the culture. They allow for the natural, innevitable evolution of English, but they also provide a check to it.
Without such a check, I believe English would become more unreliable and ambiguous. I also believe it would grow uglier and more vulgar.
I am intrigued by the idea that Dictionary makers periodically convene scholars to decide on which words should be added and which deleted from our dictionaries. AND that those dictionaries come eventually to some agreement, but still disagree with each other, leaving it an imperfect science.
I don’t see this as linguistic legalism. In fact, I find it a rather democratic method.
Where I agree with Abraham, as I understand his position, is that harping on what is “right” and “wrong” comes across as simplistic and judgmental. I’ve taught English for 20 years (uh oh, I’ve blown my objectivity cover), and have for years used the terms “standard” and “non-standard” instead. I taught in a largely black school and was cautious about labeling the dialectic distinctives of the culture as “wrong.”
“Bad Grammar is like profanity. It gives the reader an excuse to ignore your message, and focus instead on the way you express it. There is a verbose commenter here who I have issues with. I find myself looking at the mistakes he makes, rather than the substance of his message.”
Which makes me want to do something like Jesus did and hang out with fisherman so people who only looked at grammar would be “hearing but not understanding.”
Brian –
As a fellow English teacher, I agree with your take on the way our language evolves and that it actually works pretty well, but don’t you find that the real grammar Nazis are not the English teachers but those who were taught to think of English as an exact science of conformity?
I have colleagues who will not accept that it’s OK to split infinitives and who will correct it on student’s papers.
Abraham –
I agree with you, though I still have fun telling my students they’ll have to take that up with their doctor when they ask me if they can go to the bathroom. :-)
It’s the only petty distinction I regularly correct and only because it’s comical.
Grammar is like clothing, its appropriateness varies according to the standards set by the community with which it is used to interact. You express yourself by it, people judge you by it, and you typically modify it according to your circumstances. Those books indicate what is acceptable among a large community whether it be in writing or speech. If you wish to wear faded jeans, it may be just dandy around friends or the mall or Silicon Valley, but in most formal or business situations, they will work against your cause.
Maybe the books just need better titles.
You’ve actually confused subjects and verbs here. Considering the topic of this post, is “ironic” even adequate?
“Usted [singular, formal] es”
“Tú [singular, informal] eres”
And just for completeness…
“Ustedes [plural, formal] son”
Nor is the situation as simple as you’ve made it out to be. In some parts of the Spanish-speaking world, using the informal form of “you” to address someone you don’t know is considered the height of pretense. In other parts, using the formal form to address someone you don’t know is considered priggish and affected. The only way to avoid causing offense is to learn rules and apply those rules correctly.
Now, then — sorry for letting my, um, prescriptivist tendencies get the better of me. As you were…
Sorry I blurred my Ustedes/Usted es.
And is it true that in Spanish Bibles the informal is used when referring to Jesus? That was the most important part of my comment–at least to me.
It is in all of the translations that I’m familiar with (also true when referring to or addressing God in the OT).
Fair enough.
Thanks for your clarifications:) It’s so easy to get mixed up when blogging away in between other things.