Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Grammar"/"Usage": round 3 (beware!)
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:24:07 EST
 <1992Aug26.051945.18599@Princeton.EDU> <1992Aug26.153522.21648@news.columbia.edu> <1992Aug26.182659.4384@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Wright State University 


This discussion is becoming an addiction.  I am "in denial" even now.

Gabe>While we may have difficulty agreeing on the ideal form of a bird, many
>people have no problems categorizing the ostrich as a non-standard bird,
>or a flying toaster as a non-bird.

Roger>Fer sher.  Similar problems arise when we wish to define 
>"standard English" in any way that does not allow for variation 
>based on different times, places, purposes, etc.  We know what 
>it's *not,* but we don't know what it *is.*

Most non-mathematical things and concepts are defined using the same eductive
process, Roger.  Even the field of accountancy is basically an applied problem
in classification of what does, and does not, "count" as one thing or another.  
 
Roger>"Standard" English is a dialect, and a somewhat artificial one.
>It is not something other than a dialect, does not have any special
>privilege or priority in a linguistic sense.

Gabe>But it _does_ get accorded "special privilege or priority" by most
>people who are *not* linguists.

Roger> Indeed, but not in any systematic way, or even with agreement on what
> it is, what it consists of.  At best we get partial definitions from
> examples and exclusions.

I think you are missing the point, Roger.  You and Mandar think "Standard 
English" [tm] is a dialect, something like "Bostonian accent"
or "Southerner" or "Sloan Park." The point is that spoken (and -- greatly
separate -- written) English has a core set of grammatical and usage structure,
much like the prototypical bird.  The variations come in verbiage, inflection,
style, etc.  That's why the style manuals for *The Economist* and the
*Associated Press* contain different word preferences, styles, etc., but still
discuss the same core, standard thing: the English language.

Roger>You did suggest that they needed to "re-learn" basic grammar and usage.
>And these things are known to everyone who can talk.  Not in a textbook
>way, of course, but known.  

Gabe>There *are* many people who would do well to re-learn basic grammar and
>usage.

Roger> In what sense of "re-learn"?  And to what end?

Roger, do you know how to swim or ride a bicycle?  How about poker?  I bet you
have automated many of the "rules" of biking, swimming, etc., and this is why
you couldn't "explain" them and don't have to think about these rules.  You
just do them, which is how people -- as you say -- "know" how to use grammar. 
Not everybody is equally facile as a swimmer, and they may even be doing
some motor action that may cause damage in the long run. "Re-learning" to swim
or bike would be beneficial.  Thus it is the same with "re-learning" grammar
and usage -- to speak & write more effectively, more accurately, and so on.

Gabe>Some people learn to write well first, but many find that their abilities
>are improved by an understanding of how the language works.
> 
Roger> And, as I have said, many don't.  However, direct observation of one's
> own speech is a way of crossing the bridge between intuition and conscious
> knowledge, the bridge one must traverse every time one writes a sentence in
> one's own language.

By analogy, some people gain by studying chess and some don't -- but if you're
serious about chess you will study attacks and defenses.  Same with musical
instruments (vis a vis training).  Simply observing oneself playing chess will
not improve the game dramatically, and simply playing an instrument alone 
will not make one a fine musician.  Why don't you see the same with writing?  
I think Gabe's point is quite insightful.

Roger> More universal?  Isn't that like "more unique"?  8-)

Only more rare.

Roger>Not the other way around; a language is not a standard idiom plus 
>dialects that radiate from it.

Gabe>But that *is* effectively what happens, even though some linguists may
>think otherwise. 

Roger> No, it is not.  Only in schools does this happen, and even there the 
> "standard" idiom subtly changes to reflect the local dialect.  Hang
> out in a grade school or a high school in Georgia sometime, and listen.
> Repeat in Indiana and California.  The "Standard" idiom is merely so by
> convention, and convention changes, too, thus changing the idiom with it,
> or the conception of what's standard.  
> Look: about 95% of verbal behavior is idiomatic, dialect speech.  The dialects
> are not understood by their users, or even by users of other dialects, to
> be variants of some "standard"; they are heard as *the* language.  Those
> encountering a new dialect don't compare it to "standard," but to *their*
> speech.

OK then, why is it that the kids in Indiana and Georgia, and Bristol and Perth,
can understand each other?  What aspects will they not understand about each
other's speech?  Could it be ... that their speech has a common core and that
their particular verbiage, inflection, etc. reflect the extent to which their
"dialect" does not overlap with that core?

-----ted hayes