Dec 11, 2008
Why it is both morally essential and virtually useless to stand against grammatical elitism.
[G]rammatical witch-hunting is founded so deeply in perceptions of intelligence and social standing that no amount of argumentation…could penetrate it meaningfully.
(Via Jesse Hines in the comments of the baby mama post)
* * * * *
This is true… I have a youth here in northern Manitoba who is a very good grammar student. I appreciate this about her, until it comes to her need to correct everyone’s grammar… especially when it comes to things that are acceptable in South Carolina that aren’t acceptable in Manitoba.
I was a grammar-corrector of grammar-correctors until I studied a bit of linguistics in college; that immediately put an end to my grammatical bigotry.
Though there is and should be a “standard” American grammar and lexicon, if the culture moves away from that, in the understanding of certain words and the usage of specific morphemes/words, then that is simply the way it is. Its been happening since the tower of Babel and it will happen even more.
Sorry for the long response, but in the long run, the purpose for language is to communicate an idea, not to display a specific level of intelligence. As long as the idea is communicated clearly to the intended receivers, the grammar and word usage is irrelevant.
I agree totally…it is about effective communication not perfect grammar…However, there are just SOME things that can’t help but fill my mouth with the taste of failing enamel…These are of course on evertbody elses plate…never mine.
i heard a talk last week on the development on sociolinguistic competence in children . . . it seems that maybe even preschoolers can tell when somebody “talks funny” and when/where certain words or accents aren’t as “acceptable”. i wonder what is it about language that makes it such an integral part of our identity, even without us being told that it is.
I think there could be a moral good to teaching the standards of grammatical elitism. I grew up in southern Iowa where, “How come?” is generally accepted as meaning, “Why?” Also, words such as “warshed” and “flusterated” are the norm. I think it’s a kindness to teach someone that these are not the norm in the world at large and that if one uses the terms in a job interview they may get a raised eyebrow and no call-back.
SImilarly, not teaching someone who speaks ebonics what is the norm for this culture and society could be considered a disservice, dare I say even an insidious form of racism. Let everyone have the opportunity to publish books and rise to the top of their profession like McWhorter has.
And so, when a teacher doesn’t require her student to write a paper in proper English but allows the student to write a paper in the ebonics dialect she robs the student of the ability to communicate with a broader and higher (by education and wealth) audience.
(note that I don’t mean to replace ebonics, but to add to linguistic capability and increase the number of people one is able to communicate with).
Well said.
Don’t we too often read (or write) with stodgy, ungracious editors’ eyes which can sabotage
the very goal of communication?
So, grammatical elitism is not intelligent.
Intelligence aside, elitism is always unloving.
Teaching a dialect isn’t unloving. Expecting a certain dialect in certain situations isn’t unloving.
But judging people to be smart or stupid, worth knowing or worthless by how they talk is insidious.
And we all do it. If we don’t recognize this, we’ll never stop.
While I agree we should never look down on people for whatever reason, I do hold to grammatical correctness.
Not because I am more intelligent or better than those who speak “differently” but because inconsistent or sporadic grammar threatens understanding.
If my using the wrong verb tense (“I seen” for “I have seen” or “I saw”) goes unchecked, the clarity of my communication suffers. Using incorrect grammar in everyday conversations leads to using it in important documents.
I have an employee who routinely talks with incorrect grammar. The problem is that this makes its way into our technical business reports which can create misunderstanding for our clients.
Plus it sets up sort of a grammatical free-for-all. When anything is acceptable, specific meaning will be lost.
The phrase that is sometimes used to bewail grammatical deficiencies in public discourse is “we are losing the language”. In addition to “losing the language” there is a danger of losing the “common depository of what is so”…with regard to the English language.
If anything goes…..eventually everything goes.
Isn’t this another whiff of PC?…that we are to use the motive of being loving and gentle as the reason for not being concerned about whether everyday speech is competent?
I will never forget trying to explain to my son’s 6th grade teacher in California that contractions are NOT presented as “do’nt”, “ca’nt”, “did’nt”…etc. She was completely baffled by my point that she had checked every one of his written contractions right, when they were all wrong. She had taught him wrong, of course, and he regurgitated what he was taught. I sat there in her office and wrote out “don’t”, “can’t”, etc. and explained that the ” ‘ ” was the replacement for the missing letter “o”.
Again, motive matters. If I’m cutting people down to build myself up, obviously that’s elitism. However, if I’m ignoring obvious and constant erroneous use with the assumption that somehow that is “the loving thing”…something in me wants to simply ask, “huh??”. The dumbing down of America IS an issue that should not be ignored in the name of love. Should I have let that situation pass uncorrected as a way of teaching my son to respect his teacher? Not!:)
At first glance at this post, I was like, “Wow. Well said! Preach it, McWhorter.” Then I read it again and broke it down:
No amount of argumentation could meaningfully penetrate grammatical witch-hunting. ???
Really? What does that mean? The main point proffered by that sentence isn’t really a point at all. I do believe there is indeed some great wisdom in the analysis that judgmental perceptions of intelligence and social standing are firmly attached to grammatical “witch-hunting,” but – if I’m rendering this correctly – there are some big problems with the claim this sentence is attempting to make.
First, it’s a self-effacing statement. The author is clearly trying to argue against grammatical elitism, while in the same sentence trying to argue that that same argument cannot be meaningfully argued.
Beyond that – what’s more alarming to me – is the proposed idea that a problem – a sin, really – cannot be meaningfully analyzed. Why not: Why can’t grammatical elitism be penetrated meaningfully? Because it’s such a problem – it’s so deeply founded in problematic behavior – that it can’t be fully examined. In other words (and I’m aware this is stretching it a little, but I do think this indeed is the logical implication McWorter is making here): It’s such a sin that someone who is engaged in it cannot be shown the sinfulness of his sin by argumentation.
*I also realize that it is God, the Holy Spirit, who shows us our sinfulness and not the clever argumentation of man. However, often a tool He uses is Truth which we humans are graciously allowed to speak to each other. *
Finally: When is it ever the AMOUNT of argumentation that penetrates a problem meaningfully? Isn’t it always the validity – the quality, the truth – contained within an argument that makes it worthy of being called a credible analysis?
Yeah, people like to argue to prove themselves smart. I witchhunted my grammatical witchhunting neighbor yesterday. I wanted to take her down a notch. And maybe put myself up a notch…
I like telling my fellow evangelical friends that I’m a linguistic relativist (pragmatist really) and that there is no absolute linguistic truth . . . . a bit mischievous really and probably more misleading than anything, but of course there’s truth to it.
The rightness or wrongness of a speech pattern can only be defined by reference to it’s success at carrying the message intended by the speaker. Successful communication is far more likely when the speaker and the listener speak a similar dialect.
Hence, speaking the standard educated American English “acrolect” in Surrey England would be “bad” grammar, no matter how closely it conformed to the “rules” of your 6th grade grammar school book.
By the same token, speaking “Spanglish” in a boardroom in St. Paul, MN is not likely to be effective communication no matter how well suited that dialect may be when speaking amongst one’s ethnic community.
Presumably, people can and do speak with great clarity or tremendous confusion in any dialect (yes, even ebonics). Not surprisingly, if the people speaking those dialects are from a lower socio-economic class and tend to have less education, it shouldn’t be surprising if a greater proportion of those speakers lack clarity in their speech patterns. It’s the lack of education that’s to blame, however, and not the dialect per se.
It’s all relative . . . .
“Morally Essential” — Agreed
“Virtually Useless” — I can’t agree to the above and this at the same time without destroying my soul