ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

Alienvoord — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:09:03 GMT

"Proper English" by Robert Wardhaugh is a good overview of the history of English prescriptive grammar.

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:16:14 GMT

If you are at a University try checking their library for works by the two prescriptive grammarians mentioned above. Often libraries if they don't have a hard copy, have access to online databases such as the "Archive of Americana" by Readex. Here you can find both Dr. Robert Lowthe's (1710-1787) work "A short introduction to the English Grammar" as well as many of the works by Lindley Murray (1745-1826). I would also recommend Edwin Newman, a contemporary prescriptive grammarian. He came out with a book entitled "Strictly Speaking: Will America be the Death of English?" that should be readily available at a bookstore or a library.

I would however note that most of these grammarians explain the so-called problems of English with "logic", but as the above post stated they try to impose Latin rules on a Germanic language which in and of itself is illogical. Most of the problems they see with language had been used for centuries, and are still being used today. Most, in fact, have become norms for the English language. Lists of words including the word "shall" in addition to many others were considered wrong, but as I'm sure you know are quite acceptable in today's English.

I hope this was of some help to you.

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

LanguageLover — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:52:50 GMT

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.

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

paco2004 — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:45:25 GMT

Roro

See you again someday here.

paco

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

Roro — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:40:22 GMT

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 !

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

paco2004 — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:24:32 GMT

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

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

Guest — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:56:04 GMT

History of English Usage

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

Roro — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:04:10 GMT

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!

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

paco2004 — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:51:32 GMT

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

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

paco2004 — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:47:13 GMT

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

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

MrPedantic — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:30:38 GMT

Thank you!

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

Have a cheery morning,
MrP

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

Roro — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:10:45 GMT

:)
That is what you've pointed out through an actual case. When I went over that site I didn't notice it at all!
( .. and when I wrote my comment, I didn't have in mind conflicts at the present time, to tell the truth. I know little about it, in the first place! but how true it is. )
I'd like to develop our discussions more further.
Thank you for your reply, and have a nice dream,

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

MrPedantic — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:52:14 GMT

Hello Roro, you're welcome â and thank you for your replies! Much there to consider. I'm interested in this point, for instance:

"Sometimes other type of conflicts are carried out in the disguise of disputes on linguistic or stylistic matters."

I wonder whether the prescriptivistic bogeyman has been to some extent invented â or at least, exaggerated â simply because it provides a useful foil for modern grammarians.

MrP

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

Roro — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:38:15 GMT

Good morning MrPedantic, thank you for your reply!

I got really interested in these questions. I didn't expected at first that your theme would develop thus far.

Your point sounds convincing to me, and, as you said, I don't think it's not compatible with my humble idea!

Thank you again. With my best wishes,

Re: Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

MrPedantic — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:29:37 GMT

That's an interesting thought. Now that you mention it, I do notice a slight difference in emphasis between the two versions:

1. Horace is an author, with whom I am much delighted. ? The emphasis here, to my ears, remains with Horace (?because 'whom' has a stress).

2. Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted with. ? While here, the emphasis moves to the 'being delighted' (?because 'whom' has no stress, and the stress on 'much' seems slightly stronger).

(This may be simply to approach your 'unifying force' idea from the other end of the syntax.)

MrP