Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:12:00 CDT
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         "815 Stephen H. Karlson 753-6980"
 <TA0SHK1%NIU.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Descriptive and prescriptive

Natalie consults the captain of the sailing team:

: What was that hilarious stuff in the book Steve K. quoted a while
: back about non-standard dialects and inability to do well in math?

That was the speculation of William Dale Davidson and Lord Rees-Mogg
in _The Reckoning_ that a dialect lacking well-defined tenses and
distinctions between singular and plural would not be a good dialect
to do math in.  Rashmi and Ronin observed that lousy teaching might
have something to do with it.

Several commentators, notably Natalie and Karen, observed that one
role of a good teacher would be to make clear to students when
standard dialects would be appropriate.  Here is Natalie today:

: I make judgments in some circumstances based on a person's ability to
: speak/write "appropriate" English for the setting.  I don't know what
: "good" English means.

That sounds like an answer to Frank McLellan's observation that different
levels of language are required for different situations.  It also offers a
way to tackle Carol Goodson's claim that "the concept of standard English is
good and worth preserving."

The discussion strikes me as one in which the participants are using
slightly different vocabularies.  Natalie is using terms such as
"appropriate" and "standard" as her *profession* uses them, and as a
professional linguist she has been reluctant to be an arbiter of
standards.

Carol (and there may be others) are using "good" rather than
"appropriate" perhaps because that's how they were brought up.  Many
parents may have emphasized to their children that "good" English or
"proper" English were keys to commercial and social success
(business not likely to hire people who couldn't communicate well;
 people who don't speak "proper" English unlikely to be good dinner
 companions or, God forbid, spouses.)

 I'm stretching a little bit here, but I'll make an observation I've
 made before: institutions evolve to economize on transactions costs.
 Language is an institution, and something called "standard" or
 "proper" or "good" English economizes on transaction costs by making
 communication among people possible.

 I wonder if "good" or "proper" didn't evolve as terms describing the
 standard because those terms are easier for parents to teach their
 kids than "efficient."  Comments?

 With that in mind, here's one final observation before I head home
 and replay today's boat races.  Natalie makes another professional
 observation:

: I'll restate my point.  There is nothing innately superior about
: "he does not."  People who use "he does not" don't think any better than
: people who use "he do not."

Natalie, I accept the second sentence as a professional observation.
The third sentence is a testable hypothesis.  People who use "he
don't" may never have been taught the standard, or they were taught
the standard and forgot it, or they know the standard but choose
not to follow it.  If a person uses "he don't" in a job interview,
what inference should the interviewer make?

Steve Karlson

Get a good start and sail on the lifted tack.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU