Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Grammar" & "Usage"
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:43:33 EST
 <1992Aug23.045553.3796@Princeton.EDU> <1992Aug23.200353.3706@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug24.211604.8510@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Wright State University 


Oh boy!

I've been thinking about this whole discussion.  I read a post by someone
else about work site/boardroom clothing, and I had a similar reaction to
Gabe's, but let's consider it here too.

TH>So can we agree that there is a reliably standard set of English usage rules?

Roger> There are several sets, for several idioms and dialects.  And all of
> them change over time.

TH>And that these vary (only slightly) for different situations?

Roger> They can vary quite a bit.

Let's put it this way: how would you know that someone's speaking or writing
reflected a dialect, or that it was in need of editing, etc.?  How would you
know that a sentence on a page was English and not some other language?

Because there is a core set of basic rules for grammar and usage. "Dialects"
exist as variations on the rules; they may more or less be seen as valid
representatives of the category of "standard" English, but they are
understandable as English because they share these core features.  By way of
analogy, an ostrich is less "bird-like" than a robin because the ostrich has
fewer (not less) bird-like features -- doesn't fly, doesn't catch worms, sticks
head in ground, etc. (Hiding its head in the ground is a sign of a less
bird-like feature, of course.)

Roger, you stated that there are several sets of rules for idioms and dialects. 
I submit to you that a dialect would not be English if it did not share in the
core set of rules.  A dialect is a set of stylistic differences, but if it does
not "toe the line" (OK, ObSmly) of this set of core rules, it is not English
language anymore.

TH>(Herewith,) a paragraph from a student paper I have just read:
>"Additional research could be done on how the size of the group as 
>well as the proportion of men to female ratio is.  Does it help or 
>hinder combining the to genders in groups who must problem solve 
>for survival.  How does the dominance wiegh out in an artifacial 
>setting compared to a in the field study."

TH>His writing reads like tea leaves in mud.  This is not clear writing.
>It is not business English.  It is not street English.  It is poor writing.

(Up to this point, Roger heartily agrees with everything I have said about this
writing sample.  Check earlier posts if you don't believe me.  Hell starts to
freeze over --- Ed.)

TH>It communicates only that the student did not understand what he was talking
>about, even when spoken aloud (try it).

Roger> Not true.  It communicates only that the writer had trouble writing.
> Many people do.  An oral presentation by the same person might have been
> just fine.  Don't think I haven't seen cases just like that.

Two comments.  First, you can't have it both ways, Roger.  You have long
championed the idea that almost all one needs to do is mimic formal language in
order to write at least passably.  But here you say that you *personally* have
witnessed "just fine" oral presentations by people who have had
(significant?) trouble writing.  Why?  Couldn't it be that good speaking 
is not *that* similar to good writing, because the needs for written 
communication are largely different than for spoken English?     

Second comment: I never said or thought that the student was stupid 
(even though you accuse me of this below).  This piece of writing reads more
like written mumbling than like reasonable communication.  I gather you don't
believe this at all.  Suppose he wrote what he would have
said, a la the Roger writing method -- if he had said this to you, Roger, don't
you think you would have been confused and asked a question for clarification?

You have agreed with me that it was not good writing.  You go further and state
that it "communicates only that the writer had trouble writing." Given how
apparently simple it is to write passably, I think it's more likely that the
student had a comprehension, not a "language arts" (admittedly not your term),
deficiency.

Roger> I *do* prefer, and encourage foreigners to use, a
> writing style not too different from formal spoken English.  This keeps
> the sentence length down, for one thing.

I am not multilingual, but it seems to me that your suggestion is perfectly
fine for a non-native speaker.  My experience with Japanese, Indian, and Korean 
students who are non-native speakers is that they will produce writing more
similar to formal English -- colorless, much like the core themes I mentioned
above (mostly because the puns and slop eludes them) -- and that they will take
the time to make sure they understand the concepts so that they can write about
them with the attenuated lingual felicity they posses. (No, I am not
saying they are stupid at all.) My position is that in these cases a
comprehension problem is more remarkable than a language problem.  
My position is also that the sample above is the result of a comprehension 
problem.  


TH>If you received an application blank or letter with as many mistakes 
>as the sample of writing above, you would seriously consider this applicant?

Roger> Again, it depends on the job, and on what else I knew about the person.
> "Bad writing" does not equal "stupid," no matter how you may wish this
> to be the case.

To quote you, "*sigh*." I never implied that the student was stupid.  
I never said that people who can't write well are stupid.  For example, I could
name a hundred high school drop outs who would do better work on my car than
W.F. Buckley could. (I could name more, but there are only so many scrapes my
car can get into.)  However: (1) poorly written application essays etc. may
indicate that the person is not too savvy about job hunting, a related issue;
and (b) for some jobs (sound familiar?) poor writing is a disqualification.

  
Roger> Which is also true for hundreds of other jobs.  I wouldn't hire this
> person to write copy or even to type; but I see no evidence of the
> "sloppy thinking" you presume.  Some people just don't know how to
> express their (well-formed) thoughts in well-formed writing.

You assume that this student has well-formed thoughts.  Also, you say 
that those with well-formed thoughts may/may not be put into well-formed 
writing -- would poorly-formed thoughts be equally likely to be either well- or
poorly-formed?  I doubt it.

TH>But if you were hiring for a job where communication was
>>important -- which includes most jobs -- I believe that this student would be
>>passed over for a better writer.

Roger> In most cases, yes.  But I wouldn't call the person stupid or ignorant
> or accuse them of not knowing what they were talking about.  There's
> just no evidence for that.

Again, I have not implied that writing inadequacy is a sign of low IQ.  *BUT*
if I were to evaluate writing about a content area that someone claimed
expertise in, and the writing was poorly done, I would be likely to doubt the
person's expertise or maybe other cognitive processes.
  
For example, if I sent you a letter seeking a position as a copy editor and
claiming job experience at this, and my letter was full of gramatical 
mistakes and punctuation errors, I think you'd be a *little bit* doubtful about
my claims or my ability.


Roger > No.  Do you expect the "recommendations for future research " graf
>>> to show creativity?  It's almost always the same bullshit.
> 
>>I'm not sure what you meant here.  My question was, do you think that 
>>this student's misuse of standard writing shows creativity, as opposed to
>>misunderstanding how to communicate properly -- yes, properly -- in written
>>English?
> 
> No.  Did I say it did?

Roger, what is a "graf?"  What is "wrt?"  These are the sources of my confusion
("wrt" occurred in earlier posts of yours).


TH>So you are agreeing that that this person needs to learn -- re-learn,
>>maybe -- grammar and usage.
> 
Roger> No.  The person needs to learn writing.  Not the same thing.

We must agree to disagree then.  I cannot be convinced that written
communication is not *at least* a type of usage that carries with it a
requirement for adherence to grammatical structure.  And I'm not talking about
knowing that this & that is a subjunctive, or a hanging participle.  I mean
that puttting words on paper in a certain order means one thing or maybe
another depending on the order, tense, number, types of words, etc.  All of
these elements are lacking in the student sample above.


Roger>I might add that many people who speak excellently write 
>>> badly 
> 
TH>(I assume that was meant to rankle on purpose)
> 
Roger> No.  Just fact.

Shades of the "less/fewer" debate.  Of course since I'm posting this I will
claim to be right.

TH>I am curious about two things here.  First, you say that good speaking can be
>turned into good writing.  Do you believe that the opposite is true?
> 
Roger> I don't see why not.

So President Reagan is a good writer by virtue of being a good speaker?
Come now, Roger.

Roger> You want me to disagree?  Sorry, Charlie.  

(It's Ted, Roger --- Ed.)

Roger>Learning to write is
> *important.*  I think there should be a much greater emphasis on it.
> But, as I said, it's a tricky job, and not one related to basic grammar
> and whatnot.  

Quesiton: you say learning to crochet or scuba dive or play the viola are 
frequently "tricky jobs," and they require understanding fundamentals -- 
why shouldn't a writer understand fundamentals?
  
TH>Simply "aping formal, but uncomplicated speech" is not necessarily correct
>>English usage for writing.
> 
Roger> Damn close, though.  In fact, most business letters could be improved by
> making them a little more speech-like.  That's what I do when I edit
> them.

Do you notice improvement in speaking ability after you return edited
letters?  Why not, Roger?

TH>  Much communication in speech, again as Bonita
>>pointed out, is nonverbal, and when verbal depends on pitch, etc. of voice. 
>>I would say that good speakers who also write well (or passably) do so because
>>they understand how to use the language appropriately for that medium.  

Roger> Sure--one learns what sticks to the page, and what doesn't.  But formal
> speech is organized to minimize the non-verbal cues, too.  Informal
> speech relies on them much more.

The best speeches at conventions and gatherings use a number of non-verbal
cues -- not as many as informal speech, true -- because they facilitate
communicaiton.  Writing is *devoid* of these cues; have you ever communicated
better by making eye contact in print?  Of course not.

Roger> Waste of time.  Most good writers don't know a large bunch of
> grammatical rules, and those who do don't refer to them much.  I myself
> can't tell you what all those clauses are; I never learned grammar per
> se, though I've read a bit about it since school let out.  As for usage,
> learning rules just won't help.  Either you learn it by speaking and
> reading prose, or you don't learn it. 

Parrots and mynah birds (sp?) ape speech (pardon the mixed species).  Would you
say that they are learning English?  Of course not.  So why don't you think
that *understanding* English is essential to learning it at least at the level
of the core aspects of English I mentioned above?

Roger> There's a standard *formal* English.  Its rules are quite irrelevant to
> much that is spoken and written.

But what is spoken and written would not be recognized as English unless it had
a substantial overlap with core *formal* English.

Roger> Funny how 70 years of radio and 45 of TV have had no effect on Southern
> accents, isn't it?  Very few Southerners in prestigious positions in
> broadcasting -- Dan Rather's unique accent deserves mention -- yet all
> that blather hasn't buried Southern accent or usage.

Actually broadcasters are taught to speak with a "Midwestern accent" (though
thank goodness they don;t put "at" at the end of sentences!).  Even in Houston,
where I spent a number of years, you could tell the difference between
"broadcasters" and "commentators" (such as Marvin Zindler) by sound alone.

It would be impossible to understand Chaucer or Dan Rather if their English did
not overlap with core formal aspects of English grammar and usage.  If they did
not overlap, they might as well be speaking Hindi.

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english