It may or not be a moral issue because everyone has their own morals. For me I wish the freedom to the use language how I choose. Also being there are many dialects English each as correct as the next this makes no sense.
African American Vernacular English is just as “proper” as the Dialects of the southern states; Cockney English; New Zealand English or John Simon’s English.
Besides, sometimes Fuck is the right word for the occasion.
The argument makes no sense.
If it is indeed better for morality to adhere to one static version of English, how would we ever decide which one? I don’t think newscaster English has any moral advantage over AAVE. So we’d essentially just be picking one at random.
Of course, I’m sure Fiske has some argument for why his version of English is more moral, which I think is the real motivation behind this.
Well, I am descriptivist, so I was all set to disagree with the argument that it is a moral issue, until I got to the point that Simon is trying to separate himself from the hoi-polloi, so I will agree that it *is *a moral issue, and Simon is on the side of pure Evil.
Of course, as every descriptivist knows, there is not *one *English language, but a lot of different dialects. Something that is correct in Simon’s dialect is incorrect in mine. That does not mean that Simon is **wrong **(as noted, Simon is Evil), just different.
Obviously, using the incorrect dialect is often not a good thing to do. People are judged by the dialect they use, and students should be taught the appropriate dialect to use in different circumstances.
I can see your post arguing in two different directions.
The common cliched unoriginal version of this argument is that, if we go the descriptivist route, people will post things like this, and who are we to gainsay them? We must have some standards, or else language will devolve into unintelligible gibberish! This argument is, of course, utter poppycock.
You may be making a subtler and lovely argument in favor of descriptivism, though, and if so, I applaud you. The argument would be something like this: look, it’s certainly possible to post bad English, and here’s an example of it. Bad English is recognizable by the fact that nobody understands what the speaker is saying: it communicates nothing. Since language is communication, and since communication is its primary purpose, the primary yardstick by which language should be judged is whether it successfully communicates. Whether it adheres to some older version of the language is immaterial. Complaining that “flaccid” is now pronounced with no hard /c/ is as idiotic as it is irrelevant.
I hope that’s what you were getting at; if so, brilliant!
Of course, there’s a primary yardstick, and then there’s the secondary yardstick of aesthetics. That’s a fine yardstick: I’m free to say that the lyrics of “If It’s Love” suck ass. But for me to call such a travesty immoral–well, okay, maybe that’s a bad example, because the people that wrote that song should probably be shot. But that’s the exception. Most of the time there’s no moral value to aesthetics, and people who argue for an objective aesthetics are, that song aside, flat-out wrong.
That ratfink!
I saw this before in another thread, and I found it an excellent counterargument to the typical prescriptivist hand-wringing about the degeneration of (their favored version of) English.
Throughout the book I mentioned in the OP, the best argument Fiske offers for the prescriptivist stance is that letting words change willy-nilly makes effective communication more difficult. This is usually stated as an absolute, when really, as Fry notes, effective communication depends on context.
When I’m writing my dissertation (what a joy that is), I write formally. On this board, I write semi-formally. When I’m talking to a guy who barely speaks any version of English working at Wal-Mart, I use simple words. I don’t ask where I might find paraphernalia to augment the facade of my means of conveyance; I ask where the car accessories are.
The best prescriptivist argument that Simon puts forth is that using language is one of the last ways to tell if someone is educated and of a refined sensibility. You know, we used to be able to tell well-bred people their appearance (gentlemen used to wear hats, ladies wore dresses, etc). Now that the common people can mix with the elites, we must use language as a means of elevating ourselves above the commoners. Another quote (last one, mods, I promise):
Basically, it seems prescriptivists just want something, anything, to hold over the heads of uneducated people. Now, I can understand that people need to justify their place in society, but there are better criteria by which to judge someone. Behavior is one; I don’t care if the person behind me in a theater knows that “irregardless” isn’t correct as long as they know it’s rude to talk or text during the movie. Whether the guy who holds open a door for me knows that “career” and “careen” refer to two different types of movement is immaterial.
Trying to Google further about this, I was struck by the remarkable coincidence that there’s also a British journalist named Robert Fisk, who’s also a curmudgeon about linguistic matters. What are the chances.
Well, there was a recent discussion about it, but I have seen language being labelled as “lazy” before. It’s a pretty common term.
Good to know.
I think he underminds his argument by calling it an issue of morality; it harkens up the image of someone stubbornly insisting we should declare English the offical language because if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us!
I leand towards prescriptivism myself, but I’m having a difficult time thinking of a context that would make poor grammar immoral. The closest I can grasp is the idea that failing to teach someone proper English would be immoral, because the victims would then have some of their opportunities limited by their deficiencies. In order to extend that to it being immoral for everyone to use language incorrectly, one would have to subscribe to the “it takes a village” philosophy…and frankly, that puts too much responsibility for language onto complete strangers.
“McJob” and “headbanger” have been in pretty common usage since at least as long as I’ve been alive. If they’re “ephemeral”, they’re taking an awful long time ephemerating.
Also, do dictionaries really drop words everytime they add a new word to “make room”? I’m kinda skeptical.
IANALexicographer, but I believe that the dictionary you have on your shelf is likely to be an abridged dictionary, containing the most common words in your language. (It’s still quite long and some of the words it contains are admittedly not very common.) It happens that a word becomes uncommon enough that it is being dropped from abridged dictionaries. But if you looked in the unabridged dictionary (which fills many volumes), you’d find it still.
I think that, if a dictionary did say how people “ought to” speak, he’d still have problems with it, as it wouldn’t be the way he thinks they ought to. And that is the problem: who defines the oughts and shoulds?
I have no problem with creating a standard, and encouraging people to follow it, as there are times when that is important. But a language that doesn’t change to meet the demands of the populace will just be discarded for another one. As the environment changes, the needs of the speakers change. A static language can’t hope to compete.
If there were a proper English, then “proper” would have a proper and improper usage. It would properly be used to refer to things that are correct. Since language usage by a native speaker of the language cannot be incorrect (without significant effort to make it incorrect), it would be incoherent–read “improper”–to refer to “proper English.” It would therefore be immoral for me to fail to teach you the proper use of the word “proper.”
Fortunately, however, there’s no such thing as proper English, so you’re welcome to use the word however you want, and I’m free from moral taint if I fail to chastise you for your peculiar usage of the word :).
He is a morally bankrupt fool who doesn’t speak like Chaucer.
And of course using compiled programming languages is equally immoral? Or is it COBOL and FORTRAN only? Either way, further proof that Microsoft is the Devil.
No, I thank thee: I would go back to Anglo-Saxon days, ere the English tongue was made corrupt by those wicked Norman French folk.
Both COBOL and Fortran are compiled 
Must… resist…
Stephen Fry of course also gets dinged for his prescriptivist tendencies. Hardly anybody is fully one or the other – we all have our pet peeves, and our licenses. One thing that seems to come up frequently in QI is that Fry unquestioningly stands by the standardization of terminology by scientists. I’m sympathetic, too, because it adds functional clarity if we are specific about how we use a the term “berry”. But if you don’t actually get into a discussion about the value of consistent nomenclature, it just sounds like scientists don’t understand what a strawberry is. It’s a good idea to regularize terminology, but unless you admit that’s what you’re doing, you’re just relying on a sense of handed-down authority to make people change their ways.
It’s vital in a specific industry to standardize jargon in order to be able to communicate critical concepts clearly and concisely. You just have to know when it’s appropriate to use jargon and when it’s not. Again, the clothing analogy.
Heh. I used the “berry” example in college, when some wanna-be-smartass told me that a tomato was a fruit, not a vegetable. “Sure,” I said, “if you’re talking to a botanist, but botanists use the word differently from how cooks use it. If you’re talking to a botanist, a strawberry isn’t a fruit.”
Boy oh boy did that piss him off. He flat out thought I was lying, and I don’t think I could ever even convince him to look it up.
See, people like that give the rest of us know-it-alls a bad image.