From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: "Grammar" & "Usage"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 04:55:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.200534.3699@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.232516.13379@Princeton.EDU>, 
>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>Roger> And yet: we're in a usage discussion group, where issues of formal
>Roger> grammar are also raised.  Given the circumstance, the context, etc., I
>Roger> think the appropriateness of lumping all the different issues together
>Roger> under "grammar" is questionable.

>I have read, with growing uneasiness, Roger's defense of the grammar/usage
>distinction, how any usage is basically cool as long as someone understands
>the message, an so on.  

*sigh* That's not what I said.  Usages are cool or uncool in their
contexts.

>I have two points.  First, a question for Roger:
>what in the world did you do as a copy editor (a job you mentioned you held)?
>In anticipation of your response of, "I edited copy" (or something close
>to that), I ask, For what purpose?  Wouldn't any old slop do?

a) I've edited dissertations, record liner copy, and other things.

b) No, of course "any old slop" won't do. That's why I edited.

c) My job: to bring the usage and style of the text in question into
line with the usage and style expected in the context for which it was
written.  (With foreign students' work, I also fixed errors of grammar.)

Record liner copy and dissertations demand differnt styles, and don't
always prefer the same usages.  I looked for things that were
inappropriate *to the situation.*

I also reformulated things for clarity, and (especially for records) for
lower word count.

>A second point is in order.  I think you are presuming inappropriately that 
>usage is so plastic that formal rules are "too prescriptive" and thus bad.  

Heavens, no!

Formal rules are fine, so long as they actually describe what's what --
and what the context is in which the rule should operate.

>You would think Gabe some sort of weenie for insisting on good -- at least
>standard -- writing skills in his employees. 

Um, no.  I look for that sort of thing myself.  (Upshot: I wind up
fixing everyone else's business letters...)

Good, standard business style is *important* -- mainly because people
judge your business by it (alas).  

But I'd be appalled if Gabe were to fire someone, or not hire them,
because they misplaced a modifier somewhere, especially in speech.

>I believe this is inappropriate because you presume everyone starts at an equal
>level of ability, and thus "creative" usage/grammar is ripping fun since we
>wink at the rules we have flaunted.  

(Shouldn't that be "Flouted"?   Gotta watch those distinctions...8-) )

Of course, I presume no such thing.  Nor do I get off on flouting rules,
except in bantering situations.

>It *is* funny when we know that one *does*
>understand the rules and then *consciously* bends them.  But allow me to
>present for you, verbatim, 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."

>Knowing the theme of the paper wouldn't help your interpretation of this,
>believe me.

It's actually pretty straightforward, once you get past the spelling.
(Of course, my wife used to do research in problem-solving and its
teachability...)  Sloppy formulation, to be sure, and it would be nice
to know more about what group size and sex ratio are supposed to affect.
But, aside from getting the writer to write closer to speech (yes!), and
to use question marks and a spellchecker, I can't get  too upset abut
this.  

>Funny, funny, har har.  If you wrote this it would be, in most circumstances. 
>Do you *honestly* think you would hire this person for a job in your company,
>Roger? 

Depends on the job.  Depends on what they'd shown me they could do.  I
don't think I'd hire them for the technical writer position, or even as
a typist; but I know terrific programmers who can't write that well.

In fact, I'm told that John Bardeen was almost incomprehensible at
times.  I'd hire him and then figure out whatthe job for him might be.

> Do you *honestly* think this excerpt shows creativity?  Do you

No.  Do you expect the "recommendations for future research " graf
to show creativity?  It's almost always the same bullshit.

>*honestly* think that there is no need for this person to re-learn the basics
>of grammar and usage?

Yes.  

However, the person needs to learn how to transfer that intuitive
knowledge into good writing.  Some people speak well and write
execrably.  This person is probably not too far away from writing
adequately. 

I might add that many people who speak excellently write badly because
they were intimidated by poor pedagogy, sometimes of the abusive,
sarcastic type, during their schooling.  Very few teachers teach writing
well.

Thank God they don't have to teach speaking.

>If your answer to any of the preceding three questions is "No," then I say
>shame on you.

Um, I thought it was "yes" to the third question that was the wrong
answer.

Perhaps you don't write clearly enough!  8-)

>Roger> That's all I want: tell us how you arrive at your standards, your norms,
>> your rules.  Cite an authority, and tell us what the authority has set
>> out to do.  Or provide your own arguments from evidence.
>> But pontificating about what's right and what's wrong is profoundly
>> uninteresting, imho.  Without backing such statements are vacuous,
>Roger> especially as so many ofthem turn out to be wrong.

>But Roger, don't *experts* "pontificate" about what is right and wrong?  And

No.  They study and present the results of their work.  That's not
pontificating (distinction alert! distinction alert!).  Moreover, many
experts in language do *not* concern themselves with "Right and wrong."

>whose experts should we listen to -- the ones that agree with your prejudices
>about language, apparently (evans & evans, AHD, etc.).

No, you should listen to the whole chorus.  

And then you should look at *lots* of things they say, and see what you
think of their reasoning, if they have any.  (Remember, John Simon is on
this list...)  And then you should compare their arguments, and then
make an *informed* decision.  

Actually, Evans and Evans disagree with the AHD quite a bit.  Likewise
Fowler, Bernstein, Quinn, Claiborne, and the OED.  No two of these are
identical in their views; I consider all of them before I decide.
And that's not a complete list.  

But I don't give a damn for any of them if they just tell me *what* and
not *why.*

>Do you need an expert to see what the problem is in the student's writing
>above?

Well, why not tell me? You said the student needed to re-learn the
basics of grammar and usage.  In my non-expert, but somewhat informed (I
hope) opinion, I'd say that was wrong.  The student needs to learn how
to write--and most of that involves aping formal, but uncomplicated
speech.  I bet that student speaks grammatical sentences, even nice
formal ones, on occasion.  

Locating the precise problems in the student's writing is indeed the
task of an expert; a teacher.  I doubt a teacher would do a complete
course in grammar, etc., for this student.

(Hey, you've heard bits of George Bush's speech.  Does *he* need to
re-learn basic grammar and usage?  He's got a bigger problem than this
kind, imho.)

>Lobbing about the opines of experts is great sport on a.u.e., at Princeton, and
>among groups of those who understand the subtleties.  

Actually, it's the *basics* I'm interested in.

>But you have seemingly
>advocated paralysis without the approval of experts -- your *favorite* experts
>-- and thus we can have no debate.  

But look what my favorite experts say!  

They say: relax and speak naturally.  You already know how.  Keep it
simple and you'll get your point across.

If this is paralysis, let me have a double helping!

>In the meantime, you would presume that we
>shouldn't instill and insist upon *standard* grammar and usage because there is
>no rigorous "standard."  

On the contrary: we should insist on knowing what the standards actually
are, and what they're used for.

>And Rome will continue to burn while experts fiddle.

I'm amazed you got this far without the "barbarians at the gate"
argument.  Funny how people have been saying this about English since
Swift's time--and the language burns, but is not consumed.

Roger

Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6722 soc.culture.canada:5944