Oct 7, 2009
Prescribed grammar rules are important…for making money and fitting in.
Like this post?
Perhaps teaching prescriptivistic grammar is worthwhile, but let’s not pretend it’s for clarity.
It’s worthwhile for gaining a more lucrative socio-economic status.
* * *
Related:
- A grammar book I paged through said this sentence is correct. What say you?
- If you speak, you know grammar. If you’ve been told otherwise you were deceived.
- These kinds of books are sad: English serves you. You don’t serve English.
* * * * *
Didn’t you just say a couple days ago that regarding Bible translation, there should be some grammar rules for the sake of clarity? (at least that’s how I took it–which could be way off from what you were saying).
Thanks,
Confused Grammar Philosophy Novice
By prescribed grammar rules, I mean ones that tell you what to do when you speak rather than describe what you do naturally as a native speaker.
I think translations shouldn’t be enslaved by these prescribed rules, but should follow the descriptive rules. This is just another way of saying translations should be written the way people use their language.
That probably doesn’t really clear things up, does it?
Actually it does–thanks. I wasn’t catching on to the prescribed/descriptive distinction.
Thanks for the distinction, Abraham. It helps me understand where you’re coming from. I love your blog, but almost everything you say about grammar makes me want to hit things.
It seems to me that leaning too heavily on either descriptive or prescriptive grammar rules is too narrow. Just because languages change organically doesn’t mean that every change is necessarily good. I’m no expert, but I would think that value judgments could be placed on different grammars (e.g. in terms of efficiency, elegance, ease of pronunciation, etc.) Language development should definitely be allowed to take its natural course, but some degree of supervision and guidance is warranted. Clarity, of course, is of the highest importance, but other factors should not be ignored.
“…almost everything you say about grammar makes me want to hit things.”
I completely understand!
Instead of hitting things, I just blog about it (mostly), and this, of course, perpetuates the problem.
So now, instead of responding to your comment, I’ll keep my mouth closed for the sake of whatever you’re sitting next to. :)
My glass of water appreciates your consideration. :)
I love these posts! I have a minor in Linguistics and it’s so funny to hear people get up in arms about “proper” grammar – which I like to point out is usually defined by the “upper” class or whoever has the power at the moment.
My argument for teaching “Classical” English (I hate to call it “proper”) is that there should be some sort of common element, but that whether we like it or not, there is a certain social requirement for being able to write/speak in such a manner – but it should only be corrected in certain settings (writing a formal essay, giving a formal speech). My friends learned long ago not to correct me when I speak because then they get a Linguistics lesson they weren’t asking for…
I actually disagree that people making language being the ones in power. Political and economic power do not define and drive language development (meaning grammar rules and principles of use). A more valid argument is to suggest that people in political and economic power have a dialect of English different from that which people from different Socioeconomic strata use. The same applies to people in different fields of “power” (a problematic word in general in discussing language development on a social level) and certain terms and patterns of usage bleed into other sectors of American life and create a national language and identity.
To argue that the upper class develops and drives language development is to negate the contributions to language that other classes and economic fields make to the national development of language.
yes!
can someone give an example of a change in language that is a turn for the worse? as a linguist, it’s really hard to make value judgments about what’s “better” or “easier.” i’ve been taught that we have the brain capacity to cope with all kinds of non-explicit, or non-logical, or redundant linguistic information, so i guess i don’t think it’s a big deal.
this Friday i am attending a talk about why it appears that languages have “evolved” over the years to be more simple overall, and why it seems that the isolated/endangered ones are the more overall complex ones. is this really the case or do we just perceive it this way? can we make some kind of value judgment based on this historical evidence? oooh, chills.
1 small example (from church. Feel free to verify accuracy.) Koine Greek has 3 words corresponding to the 1 English word ‘love.’ Greek is better in this instance in terms of clarity because it can express finer distinctions with fewer words. You might also say that English is better in this instance in terms of poetic expression because of the ambiguity inherent in the word ‘love.’ Just because there are competing values in this extremely complex system, that does not mean that there are no values there. It’s just not as simple as “Greek is better than English” or “Middle English is better than Modern English.” But some constructions are more suited to various functions than others.
i suppose there may be “values” assigned to attributes of language. but whose values, and what happens when those values compete? you pointed out yourself, we might value two things in language that are incompatible. so is it really profitable to try to say one change is “worse” when there’s probably another change happening right now that you’d call “better”?
i don’t know for sure if this is right, but i tend to operate on the principle that if a value is amoral, then it’s not universal or universally good. there’s nothing inherently great that i can see about being super efficient, for instance, or super precise.
Agreed. My claim is actually quite small. I only want to say that there is a place (whatever it may be) for prescriptive grammar, and some infrequent occasions for gently correcting others’ usage. (e.g. When they use an “incorrect” construction that actually does obfuscate their meaning without adding any value.)
I teach high school English. I’m happy if kids use a subject and a verb in the same sentence.
I admire Abraham’s perspective on lots of things, but I think his perspective on grammar is wrong-headed.
I agree that prescriptive grammarians can go overboard and that trying to deny the evolution of language is pointless. There is a simple middle ground.
I teach writing for a living and regularly see how ignorance of commonlyh acknowledged usage rules creates muddled and confused writing.
Is it even possible (or useful) to teach descriptivist grammar?
Do you also oppose prescribed spelling rules? Punctuation rules? Do you reject the authority of dictionaries to define words? If not, help me see the difference.
Years ago I saw a Garfield cartoon….
Four frames in the panel.
Frame 1: Garfield walking confidently to nowhere.
Frame 2: The pesky dog says to Garfield, “How is it you walk? Do you move both right legs forward and then both left legs? Or is it right front/back left and then left front/back right?”
Frame 3: Garfield standing completely still with a stunned look on his furry face.
Frame 4: Garfield says, “I’ll never walk again.”
That’s what these braintwisters can do. Especially if I didn’t see it coming.
I recommend reading the chapter on “Usage” in Joseph Williams’s book Style: Toward Clarity and Grace to get some healthy perspective on this. He points out the absurdity of some of the so-called rules governing grammar.
That said, if we don’t have fundamental rules deduced from common usage, we won’t be able to communicate.
If someone insists that your esoterically spelled ethnic name just isn’t worth getting right (because it’s too hard and “you know what they mean anyway”) when they write it or address you in speech, you’re likely to be offended.
Also, I’m interested in learning how to speak, read, and write Japanese.
One of the best books I found was a book that laid out the basic grammar foundations (rules!) governing the Japanese language.
If someone tells me that there are no real rules to Japanese language, that it’s all just for making money and fitting in, I might as well give up now.
Without commonly accepted standards, there can be no clear communication.
My two cents off the top of my head.
I feel so inadequate. If one of my teachers would have had the forethought to teach me what prescriptivistic grammar is, I would have had the prescription to kill the diseases that come when you live and write and have your bloggings written without a prescription. But that’s just me.
When I taught high school english I explained that there were two ways to think of grammar. Most importantly, grammar is the system of rules we use to communicate in spoken language. It is syntax and declension and conjugation and all of that.
But written grammar needs more rules because we have less to work with. It’s hard to communicate without body language or eye contact or vocal inflection.
This kind of prescriptive grammar is more about standard convention than anything else.
And people learn standard convention by reading, reading, reading, reading, reading (and turning off the tv and computer).
I’ve enjoyed this recent thread, Abraham.
Greater Love has no man than this, that he lay down his life rather than lie down his life, and teaches his children likewise.