I’m confused by your use of plural pronouns.
Would it be appropriate to add the way children acquire language skills - or is that implied by what you’ve already listed?
Indeed. To study language acquisition requires a combination of the various disciplines I listed.
So, you think that, based on that quote, pleonast is either disinterested, or outright opposed, to “promot[ing] improved literacy?”
Hey, @pleonast, is that an accurate description of your opinion?
No, I think they provided an accurate definition of descriptivism. The entire point of this thread is that descriptivism is inherently non-judgmental and purely empirical. So when you object to my implication that descriptivists are “disinterested” in the goal of improving literacy, you’re objecting to a statement of indisputable fact. This is just not what descriptivists do. It’s not what linguists do, which is the whole point of this thread. As individuals, they might be fanatical about teaching language skills, but that’s not descriptivism.
There’s a clear need for a whole other field of endeavour that has nothing to do with linguistics whose purpose is to promote literacy, and it goes well beyond just “teaching grammar”. I won’t repeat yet again the statistics I’ve cited before, but half of American adults are marginally illiterate, and that’s a serious societal problem.
We need more pulp magazines, Classics Illustrated, detective paperbacks and the like - those were the kinds of media that were consumed after the United States (and the rest of the Western world) transitioned to mass literacy (until the last couple of decades of the 20th century when those media lost out apparently permanently to TV, etc.).*
(it’s not entirely clear to me how literacy has changed over time in the US except at the grossest level, because everyone seems to have a different standard for what literacy means - it’s safe to say that the US is far more literate today than in 1900).
Sure, and most Americans are safer from typhus today than they were in 1900, due to the development of effective antibiotics. But a majority continue to be functionally illiterate.
Can you provide a specific quote from that article stating that the majority of Americans are currently functionally illiterate? I see it saying that 4.1% of Americans are functionally illiterate.
This:
In 2017, 19% of U.S. adults achieved a Level 1 or below in literacy while 48% achieved the highest levels [Level 3 or better]. Anything below Level 3 is considered “partially illiterate” (see also § Definitions below).
“Partially” and “functionally” aren’t synonyms.
I think you misread that statistic. In another part of the article it specifically gives the statistic I mentioned - 4.1% are functionally illiterate.
My use of the word “functionally” was misplaced, mea culpa. But does this mean there isn’t a literacy problem? 28% of Americans are at or below Level 1 literacy, which is the ability to read a road sign. Half of American adults can’t read a book at an 8th grade level or less.
According to this site, the evidence is even more dire:
- 21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2022
- 54% of adults have a literacy below 6th grade level
- 45 million are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level
I don’t know how to react to that without knowing more. Is this an improvement from the past, and we should keep doing what we’ve been doing to continue to improve? Is this a sudden decline, perhaps due to COVID effects? I can’t imagine my life without reading - but everyone is not me - are people living productive lives without reading a book? What would improve things? Are people eager to write, but feel that anything they would write would be substandard, and so they shouldn’t bother? Or are people just not interested, and would find it an imposition to be forced to learn to write more than they currently need? Apparently at the beginning of WWII, about 10% of the population were too illiterate to serve in the Armed Forces - which suggests that however bad things are now, they were worse then (an Army at war doesn’t reject people unless it really needs to).
I’m concerned about “The Politician’s Fallacy” as well
- Something must be done!
- This is something.
- This must be done!
Okay, so in this thread, we have a self-described descriptivist who also teaches grammar. Is your contention that Left Hand of Dorkness is unknowingly actually a prescriptivist, or do think his pedagogy is just, “Whatever you do is fine,” and just gives everyone As no matter what they write? Because when you say, “prescriptivists care about improving literacy,” it implies that there’s a group of people out there - non-prescriptivists - who are opposed to that, and I can’t for the life of me figure out who those people are, because every self-described descriptivist that I’ve ever heard of also thinks literacy is important, and that we need more of it. And if every descriptivist is also a prescriptivist, then what do we even need the word “prescriptivist” for in the first place?
In addition to the questions you have * I’ve got one. Are those numbers specifically for literacy in English? Because there are many people who are literate in another language and not in English. I don’t see signs in Italian, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Chinese and German (and other languages) as I walk around because there is no one who can read them. Those signs exists because there are people who are literate in those languages but not in English. (Close to half of the people in NYC speak something other than English at home) And there’s a big difference between “21% are illiterate in English” and “21% are illiterate but 10% don’t speak English”
* and I don’t understand what not reading one book a year has to do with anything - I haven’t seen my husband read a book in 40 years but he reads two newspapers a day and a few magazines
Good point. Thank you. America has become less accommodating to non-English readers than we used to be (in Texas, laws were once published in three languages, and NYC used to have more newspapers in particular non-English languages than it has in English today), but non-English speakers and readers are still around, and might be counted as illiterate in English.
When the machines that made mass printing in the hundreds of thousands possible came into existence in the first half of the 19th century, those hundreds of thousands of copies were not for proper literature but what the Brits called “penny dreadfuls,” story magazines that serialized the most lurid novels, reeking of sensationalism and violence, and aimed at the lower classes, along with “scandal sheets,” newspapers with a similar draw for a similar audience. You can draw a direct line between them and the pedants who started churning out the rulebooks that turned into the instructional guides for the Miss Thistlebottoms of the world.
In America, mass printing begat the penny newspapers, placing sex and violence on the front pages instead of political news, as well as dime novels and another set of story weeklies. Pulp magazines augmented and then replaced dime novels when they split off into specific genres. The science fiction magazines were along the earliest and earned special approbation as mindless tales for illiterates. From the fragmentary comments of those who bothered to even mention them, they ranked just above the “spicy” (near pornographic) pulps on the ladder of literature. Comic books replaced them as the lowest of the low in the 1940s. The violent crime paperbacks of the 1950s almost killed the paperback industry when they outmoded the better regarded whodunits of the classic era.
What I keep calling “good writing” was the thin layer of cream at the top of the bottle of publishing from the earliest days of the mass market. Every medium that followed - novels, magazines, theater, movies, radio, television, the internet - had its level of cream that was considered 'art" and the vastly more plentiful and more popular middle- or lower-brow that brought in the real money and created American culture as we know it.
There was never a Golden Age of writing over the past 200 years, merely cherrypicked examples of works approved by the elites and therefore were demanded be taught as what was “proper.” No question that many of those examples deserved the praise thrown at them. And no question that after a lag previously despised popular arts, like science fiction and comic books and television, have been seen as true art with values all their own. Same is true for changes in language. Prescriptivism is merely another example of the elites scorning the masses, us vs. them, the filthy hordes sullying the purity of their betters.
But they got eyeballs on the page!
(I remember hearing Darrell Schweitzer make the point you made above, that when detective magazines were publishing some material that is still considered highly, SF magazines were publishing very poor stuff indeed.
I’ve tried to hunt down and collect every comment mainstream newspapers and magazines ever made about prewar science fiction. Other than a few writers’ magazines who noted that the genre was a good market for those who could write the stuff, I have yet to find a single positive word.
Some of my findings are summarized in an article I wrote titled “The Future Pays Well.”
Thanks. You’ve probably seen Fred Brown’s article for a writers’ magazine, titled “My Best Friends are Martians” (shortly post war I think), but I’ll mention it just the same