This is a gross misrepresentation of what this discussion has been about, in my view. It’s not about the science of linguistics or what linguists do or don’t do. It’s about how we feel about the relative importance of standard English and our tolerance for colloquialisms and language affectations.
The fact that so-called prescriptivists have sometimes made usage suggestions that were pointless and silly does not mean that all rules of grammar and style must be thrown out the window. Dictionaries have value. Grammar guides have value. And that value comes, not from arbitrary rule-making, but from empirical observations of how language is actually used, or in other words, it’s descriptive. Those who are condemned as “prescriptivists” are for the most part just those who feel more strongly than others that adherence to the codified standards is important for good communication. It’s not a rejection of all new usages and trends, it’s a statement about relative priority.
If I say “I could care less” as I often do, nobody has to guess what I mean.
Also nobody is obligated to communicate with everyone, so language can be a way to signal in-group belonging. People are best served by being able to adapt their language to the intended recipient.
Also, what’s considered “correct” is often shitty. I frequently write in grantspeak and as someone who believes strongly in the economy of language, I dislike the way I must word grant language at times. It’s laden with passive voice and unnecessary verbiage. But I know what the conventions are in my field and it would be weird if I didn’t follow them.
I’m trying to find the study showing that most research articles fail to communicate effectively despite being viewed as more “correct,” but I haven’t found it yet.
At any rate, what’s viewed as proper English often fails to communicate.
If I thought it was all about clarity, I’d be a prescriptivist myself. It isn’t. It’s gatekeeping and snobbery, a way for people who don’t have a lot to say to feel smart.
No one is talking about throwing dictionaries away. What a ridiculous strawman.
I’ve worked with low-income teens. To call their way of speaking informal would be to dress it in top hat and tails. Ɓut I can’t remember a single time when I didn’t understand what they were saying, even when they were talking to each other.
Do you also include in your dismissive sneering writers like Henry Fowler, William Safire, E.B. White, and everyone who has ever written for the New Yorker? Or, indeed, anyone at all who has ever cared about literate writing? And maybe even helped others improve their skills? Are they all ignorant “snobs” who don’t have a lot to say and want to feel smart?
Where should the line be drawn between what you regard as “snobbery” and being an apologist for illiteracy? Obviously I draw the line at a different place than you do, but I consider that to be a value judgment, and like all arguments based on subjective values, it’s unwinnable. One can only set forth one’s best rationale for one’s beliefs.
Maybe it’s just me, then, but have you seen some of gibberish in social media posts? If I do manage to understand it, it sometimes requires several passes and re-parsings. Putting that burden on the reader is just rude. and often comes from a poster who flagrantly declares “well i dont care about gramer thats you’re problem”. Where are these kids going to be when they have to apply for a job, or have to write a business letter?
But I’m not talking about the fact that different publications require specific styles, which may often be specialized, or may feel like they’re overly formal, and whether any of this is good or bad. What I’m talking about is the functional illiteracy that I alluded to just above. I agree that research papers are sometimes hard to read, for example, but it’s not from any form of “snobbery”. It’s because the researchers strive for precision in their language, and their primary audience is their peers who are familiar with the terminology.
And this illuminates where your problem is: you want to make a value judgement about language usage. It’s also how you’re completely misunderstanding what descriptivists are saying: don’t make value judgements about language usage. If you don’t make a value judgement at all, there’s no need to argue about where the line is. Differing language usages exist; they always have and always will.
Hold on, am I not allowed to say that Donald Trump sounds like a simpleton compared to Barack Obama? I’m supposed to say differing language usages exist and that’s it?
I don’t think that’s a given. Researchers strive to use language that their peers will understand, but they often use conventions that obfuscate rather than illuminate. I’ll have to dig up that study.
HAVEN you considered that you’re not the target audience, and whether or not you understand it is irrelevant to the speaker?
That’s not it at all. You’re being laughed at because you’re saying really stupid shit, like claiming that “I could literally care less” is incomprehensible, or that people who use it are morons.
For folks interested in what the scientists think, there’s a lovely podcast I’ve started listening to, Lingthusiasm. I recommend this episode for starters:
There’s a lovely graph that they mention in the episode; here it is:
Content is fair game–and there’s another way to judge reasonably. Namely: is the speaker accomplishing their intended purpose through their use of language?
Take Wolfpup. I think he has three purposes here:
To express his beliefs about language clearly, such that the audience understands them.
To persuade the audience to move toward his beliefs.
To avoid coming across as a risible wearer of belt-onions.
His posts here accomplish the first goal admirably, and on that measure I judge his language use to be very high. If I’m correct about his second and third goals, however, he’s failing entirely to accomplish them, so his language use isn’t so great.
But there’s an inevitable contradiction: the better he accomplishes the first goal, the worse he will necessarily be at accomplishing either of the other two goals.
Until he moves to a different point on that graph, I’m afraid he’ll have to choose which of the goals to accomplish.
There was a specific bit in that podcast that attacked me personally:
They’re not writing it for you. They’re speaking (or typing) in a dialect you don’t understand. You’re doing the same thing as those idiot Americans who complain about people speaking Spanish in 'Murica.
It is entertaining, though, so please continue, by all means.
Hey, look: Dan Castellaneta, voice actor for Grandpa Simpson, intended to come across as a risible wearer of belt-onions. By my standard, he used language expertly. It’s only when a person does that despite trying not to that I consider them as inexpert.
Safire seems pretty snobby to me, though I haven’t read much of him. I liked Charlotte’s Web and Stuart Little when I was younger. The Elements of Style has some good tips, especially for journalists, I think. Don’t really know Fowler. Not sure what the New Yorker has to do with anything. Didn’t David Sedaris publish some things there? I definitely like him.
Look, I’m not against writing guides and style tips. I’ve benefited from them. I love good writing. I love Shakespear, Joyce, Yeats, Austen. I don’t like assholes. I don’t like people who think that spotting the obvious logical flaw in “I could care less” makes them smart, or pretend that they don’t understand what it means, or think that the people who use it are morons and inferior to them.
I don’t follow the teens I work with on social media. That seems creepy, would probably get me fired, and could possibly expose me to criminal charges. The kids all take English and hopefully will learn to code switch. I told some of them that it’s important that they pay attention in English, as they will be applying for jobs or loans. I think it’s gotten through to some of them. But I think they should speak to their peers on social media however they want. I don’t think the person who allegedly wrote that sentence you quoted exists, or if they do, then they were trolling you. I myself curse like a drunken sailor around my friends, but I don’t in meetings.
Have you considered that there’s a strong correlation between grossly incompetent language usage and incompetent capabilities in general? I’m sure the correlation isn’t perfect, but I suspect it’s pretty damn high. I base this hypothesis on a sample consisting of Trump, George W. Bush, and the content of much of social media and the confluence of its inarguably unique content and the equally unique language in which the bullshit is commonly conveyed.
It’s relevant to the integrity of the English language, the same way that internet protocols have to be standardized in RFCs and users can’t just invent whatever the hell they want, because it would undermine the integrity of the whole communications network. Not a perfect analogy by any means, but an illustration of where I’m coming from and perhaps also an illustration of the difference between technological and humanist perspectives on language.
Your “entertaining” meme wasn’t funny the first time, and now it’s just tedious.
I’m going to look at those, thanks. Though possibly not right away as other things are going on right now. Always appreciate informative new insights.
