From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Natural language, prescriptivism, etc.
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:33:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.1992Apr8.133314.26710
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 3311

Looking back over all the arguments and responses concerning the
use of "hopefully" as a sentence adverb, I see that it is pretty
clear that often the dispute is concerned less with the use of this
one word than with the question of whether there *are* rules to
natural language at all.  Some of us feel pretty strongly that there
are such rules and that it is the job of the grammarian or linguist
to discover and then enforce (whatever that means) these rules.
Others feel perhaps even more strongly that "natural language isn't
like that," that there are no such rules for natural language, and
that it is silly (or perhaps even evil) to act as though there are.

In addition, there are those who feel that whatever natural language
is like, it is not *at all* like formal languages (such as computer
languages, logical languages, etc.).

If others are interested, I'd like to punt the question of "hopefully"
up to the meta-level, and and ask what people think is the proper
role of the linguist or grammarian.  Surely if there is such a role,
it is intimately bound to the issue of usage, whence this news group
takes its name.  It is also at the heart of the prescriptivist/anti-
prescriptivist debate.

To kick things off, consider the following views of Richard Montague:

	I reject the contention that an important theoretical
	difference exists between formal and natural languages.

		in "English as a Formal Language"
		in Bruno Visentini et al., _Linguaggii_nella_
		   Societa_e_nella_tecnica, Milan, 1970.

	There is in my opinion no important theoretical difference
	between natural languages and the artificial languages
	of logicians; indeed, I consider it possible to
	comprehend the syntax and semantics of both kinds of
	languages within a single natural and mathematically
	precise theory.  On this point I differ from a number
	of philosophers, but agree, I believe, with Chomsky and
	his associaates.

		in "Universal Grammar" (_Theoria_ 36:373-98 (1970))


Both of these papers are reprinted in _Formal_Philosophy_, Yale
University Press, 1974.  If you want to flame these views, at least
be aware that Montague was not simply whistling in the wind, that
he made significant contributions to the semantics of natural language,
and that these contributions (and those deriving from them) form
a good part of the subject matter of courses in linguistics and
philosophy of language (such courses as "Phrase Structure and
Categorial Approaches to Grammar" and "Semantics and Pragmatics" in
the Linguistics Dept. at Stanford, just to mention a couple of
arbitrary examples).

So, some questions of interest (at least to me):

	What *is* the proper role of the linguist or grammarian?
	Does this entail a prescriptive element?
	What are the criteria (if any) of good usage vs. bad usage?
	(Can *any* usage be said to be bad -- if so, on what grounds?)

Any takers?  Of course any fool can express an opinion on such matters
(God knows *I* have!).  It would be nice if the opinion came with
some *reason* concerning why it ought to be accepted in preference
to alternative views.

Te morituri salutamus.



-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english