Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

1 2 3 4 5 6
   Share on Facebook  
MrPedantic  #111027  Tue, 21 Jun 05 12:30 AM
Thank you!

"...To keep our eyes open longer were but to act our Antipodes..."

Have a cheery morning,
MrP
  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Wed, Oct 13 2004
Veteran Member (12,055)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
paco2004  #111046  Tue, 21 Jun 05 01:47 AM
Hello

I have read the article by Yates and Kenkel, though it is a kind of "look" rather than "read".

I take that the main point of what the authors want to say is the last sentence; "We support the teaching of English grammar which makes all students linguistically secure in the grammar they choose to use. Such security, we believe, rests on knowledge of the standard." The sense of linguistic insecurity ("English insecurity" if I say more correctly) is a great problem to most of us ESLs and I am sure I am to continue being annoyed with this as long as I use English.

Another paragraph I was struck with is "Not knowing Standard English is not a deficit from any modern linguistic perspective. However, there is an expectation that every educated speaker of English knows what the standard is. Given the life choices available to our students, not knowing Standard English can be a serious impairment." But I am wondering what Standard English actually is and how and by whom it is identified as the standard.

paco
  
Top 25 Contributor
Joined on Wed, Nov 17 2004
Senior Member (4,095)
In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English.
paco2004  #111047  Tue, 21 Jun 05 01:51 AM
Hello Roro

Historical Motivation for Standardization (or is that an "s"?)

The process of standardization of English can be said to have begun with the advent of printing and consequent wider dissemination of printed material in the 15th century. Early on, it was perceived that the extensive and dramatic linguistic variation in England as well as the rapid pace of language change presented a challenge. It is perhaps difficult for us to imagine the marked differences between varieties of English at the time, all co-existing within the small space of England. Today, we can travel across the continent of North America and have high levels of confidence that regional differences in English, although perceivable, will not unduly interfere with our communications. (Although on some of the islands off the east coast, for example, Tangier and Okrakoke, there are dialects which diverge a great deal from spoken Standard American English.) Such was not the case in the 15th century, as this interesting anecdote from printer William Caxton (written in 1490) makes clear.

1. And certaynly our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was vsed and spoken whan I was borne. For we Englysshe men ben borne vnder the domynacyon of the mone, whiche is neuer stedfaste but euer wauerynge, wexynge one season, and waneth and dyscreaseth another season. And that comyn Englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from a nother. In so moch that in my dayes happened that certayn marchauntes were in a shippe in Tamyse, for to haue sayled ouer the see into Zelande, and for lacke of wynde thei taryed atte Forlond, and wente to lande for to refreshe them; And one of theym named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in-to an hows and axed for mete; and specyally he axyd after eggys; And the goode wyf answerde, that she coude not speke no Frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry, for he also coude speke no Frenshe, but wolde haue hadde egges, and she vnderstode him not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wold haue eyren: then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstood him wel. Loo, what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, egges or eyren. Certainly it is harde to playse eueryman by cause of dyuersite and chaunge of langage. (emphasis added) (Harris & Taylor, p. 86)

Caxton's anecdote is important because, as Harris and Taylor point out (p. 88), it is the first time that the widespread linguistic diversity in England was seen as a problem, and a considerable one at that. Not only, as a printer, did Caxton have to decide which of the then current varieties would be the model which would offer him the best market, but also, and more fundamentally, he had to decide on how to spell the selected model. These problems were further compounded by the rapid pace of language change (which Caxton himself recognized), a pace we are unaccustomed to due to the great success of our standardizing forbears.

2. And also my lorde abbot of Westmynster ded do shewe to me late certayn euydences wryton in olde Englysshe for to reduce it into our Englysshe now usid. And certaynly it was wreton in such wyse that it was more lyke to Dutche than Englysshe; I coude not reduce ne brynge it to be vnderstonden. (Harris & Taylor, p. 89)


The quotes from Caxton contain some words a bit too archaic. I changed them to modern ones.

"1 And certainly our language now used varies far from that which was used and spoken when I was born. For we Englishmen have been born under the domination of the Moon, which is never steadfast but ever wavering, waxing one season, and wanes and decreases another season. And that common English that is spoken in one shire varies from another. In so much that in my days happened that certain merchants were in a ship in Thames, for to have sailed over the sea into Zelande, and for lack of wind they tarried at Forlond, and went to land for to refresh them; And one of them named Sheffield, a mercer, cam in to an house and asked for meat; and specially he asked after eggs; And the good wife answered, that she could not speak no French. And the merchant was angry, for he also could speak no French, but would have had eggs, and she understood him not. And then at last another said that he would have 'eyren': then the good wife said that she understood him well. Loo, what should a man in these days now write, eggs or 'eyren'. Certainly it is hard to please everyman because of diversity and change of language. (Harris & Taylor, p. 86)"

"2 And also my lord abbot of Westminster did do show to me lately certain evidences written in old English for to translate it into our English now used. And certainly it was written in such wise that it was more like to Dutch than English; I could neither translate nor bring it to be understood. (Harris & Taylor, p. 89)."

paco
  
Roro  #111083  Tue, 21 Jun 05 05:04 AM
Hi paco !
It's great. This was certainly the part which I wanted to understand but I couldn't and gave up! It's funny...

it was more like to Dutch than English

(Although I don't know whether such a comment wouldn't cause another misunderstandings.. :)

Seriously, we shouldn't forget these situations in 15-18cc., normally speaking.
By the way how do you think about MrPedantic's point ? I'm interested in it.
Talk to you soon!
  
Top 150 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Apr 11 2005
Regular Member (581)
Guest  #111188  Tue, 21 Jun 05 11:56 AM
paco2004  #111335  Wed, 22 Jun 05 02:24 AM
Hello Roro

By the way how do you think about MrPedantic's point ?

Do you mean the semantic difference between "with whom ..." and "whom ... with"? Or should I talk about why the Lowth's writing is ironic? I think I have no idea about the first question, though I'm getting inclined to agree to opinions of you and MrP.

As for the second question, I speculate Lowth's desire would be to get written English similar to Latin where a sentence rarely ends with a preposition. He might intentionally write the sentence ending with "inclined to" to illustrate the construction he wanted to reject. I had a look at the entry of "whom" in OED and found that almost all of the sentences written before the time of Lowth didn't end with a preposition, though there was one exception : "This is the man, whom I spake to thee of" (Great Bible : 1539). Most people put the preposition before "whom" as a relative or as an interrogative. It seems that English writers in general were faithful, as far as writings concern, to the Lowth's rule even before he declared it as a rule. Another construct they used was "whom + preposition": "For them, whom with they were in wages, they fight hardly"(1551, Robinson). Speaking about the quoutes after Lowth's time, a sentence that broke the Lowth's rule appeared in literature for the first time in 1905. "Getting a note, she did not tell me whom it was from, or what it was about" (1905, Glyn).

paco
  
Roro  #111342  Wed, 22 Jun 05 03:40 AM
Hi paco,

Thank you very much for your time. ... oh I didn't intend that when I asked you ...
It is interesting. But I think it's too early to make a judge. I don't know whether there are included in OED sentential data from merchant documents or letters of ordinary people in that period.
(If included, then it is certainly reliable to make a judge in this question, of course.)

I've checked Latin Grammar. You know, constructions of contemporary Russian are much similar to Latin's than the English sentence structure, owing to the grammarians 18th century.

I'm so sorry. paco. I feel need to compel myself to concentrate on my own theme. Although I don't know if I can do without you all or not...!! I cannot make posts for a while. Please don't think ill of me.
(I don't know why I should. It's a million pities.)

Anyway, there is no misunderstanding between us, right ?? This thought makes me happy.
Bye !
  
paco2004  #111375  Wed, 22 Jun 05 08:45 AM
Roro

See you again someday here.


paco

  
LanguageLover  #111488  Wed, 22 Jun 05 02:52 PM
I just wanna thank you Paco, I liked your quotations on Standardization. On also your little research on the order of preposition in a relative clause. Thanks.
  
Top 75 Contributor
Joined on Fri, Feb 25 2005
A proud Iranian living in the UAE
Contributing Member (1,393)
ModeratorTrusted Users
The similarities among the languages are more than their differences!
1 2 3 4 5 6
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service