So look. My sympathies are generally with the non-prescriptivist crowd. But I don’t agree with the above. To explain why, I will note that in the quoted sentence above, the phrase “correct English” is not being used in a way that is in keeping with the way English speakers generally use the phrase.
Also note:
True, but GuyNBlueJeans is not attempting to be engaged in the activity of Linguistics. He is attempting to do something entirely different.
-FrL-
“Standard English” is a technical term, and is not meant to indicate a value judgment.
-FrL-
Maybe part of the issue is that there is no contraction for “may not”, so it tends to sound stilted.
“No, you may not” vs “No, you can’t”.
You may be interested in this discussion of the prevalence and advisability (if any) of the word mayn’t.
Ah, the great paradox. On the one hand, it seems clear that the rules of the language should be precisely the ones extractable from the common usage. Which apparently supports the descriptive viewpoint. And yet, people can and often do use terms like “correct English” to mean something different than merely adhering to the observed norms of usage. Our stated position telling us meaning is use, it would seem we must now accept that the meaning of “correct English” really is something far more in line with the prescriptive viewpoint than the descriptive viewpoint, for, after all, that’s how people tend to employ the term. At any rate, since correct use is common use, it would seem we cannot object to this use of the term “correct English”.
Your objection to critique of use of the term “correct English” in this way is insightful, but I object to it nonetheless. The problem is that “correct English” isn’t merely an opaque term, which can be employed one way or another without much else in one’s life needing to change. The term “correct English” is clearly at least largely compositional, underlied by a notion of “correct” drawn strongly from family resemblances with various other common uses of “correct” (“Yes, that is the correct answer”, “The correct thing to do would be to give the money back”, “Well, if you’d built it correctly, it wouldn’t lie in tatters on the floor now”, “The ship was beginning to veer slightly, but I’ve corrected the heading, and everything’s fine now”, “To ski correctly, first adopt this stance”). And the resulting notion of “correct”, as used in the term “correct English”, is one which is explicitly caught up in matters of behavior, such as that “correct English” means something very much like “the way one should speak English”, with all the various implications that brings. When one says “Your manner of speaking isn’t correct English”, it seems to me, one doesn’t usually mean simply "Your manner of speaking isn’t in accord with this particular arbitrary flavor of speech which has the arbitrary opaque name of ‘Correct English’ "; one is rather saying something like “Your manner of speaking isn’t in accord with the rules for English that you should be following.”. And this use of the term is expected to be accompanied by various value judgements/behaviors on the speaker’s part (e.g., he may try to persuade you to speak in a different manner in the future), just as happens with words like “should”, etc.
And so, when we say things like “common usage = correct English”, what we are doing is also employing the term in this fashion: “You should speak English the way most people do”, and again, in employing the term in this fashion, we also mean to (and are expected to) tie this to various behaviors of ours (e.g., we will not try to persuade you to speak in an uncommon way). If use of the term “correct English” in one’s speech could be divorced from one’s various other extra-linguistic behaviors, then I would have no cause or care to object to the prevailing manner in which it is employed, but the two cannot be divorced, that’s just not the way the language game works on this point. And so when people say things like “In correct English, only ‘may’ is used to ask for permission”, I shall continue to object.
[Of course, we’re stepping right up on the toes of the debate, here, as to how people/communities can actually substantively disagree when one, for example, says “Abortion is wrong” or “Titanic was a good movie” and another is unwilling to say the same things, where clearly the one person’s usage of the word “wrong” or “good” is different than the other’s, with the apparent conclusion being that they are meaning different things by the words “wrong” and “good” and thus not substantively disagreeing, just talking past one another. As I began to outline, I suppose the resolution is in the way one’s speech is meant to combine with one’s non-linguistic behaviors, their uses actually being the same since their behaviors correspond to their words in the same way, but with the force of their substantive disagreement being found in the conflicting behaviors corresponding to their words. At any rate, though, even without getting too far into all of that, I think I’ve at least provided enough above to give some manner of defense to the descriptivist who still argues against the way “correct English” is usually employed, hypocritical as that may seem.]
Thanks. At least I learned something.
As for all the other comments (?) people made to me? Well, I’ve already forgiven them. 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ZOE, I AGREE WITH YOU 1000%!!
GOD BLESS YOU! YOU ARE 1000% RIGHT!
For what? trying to fight ignorance about how language works?
I’m perfectly aware that he’s trying to do “something entirely different”. But that “something entirely different” is misguided at best and disdainful at worst. I’m “attempting” to fight some ignorance here, like Jamaika a jamaikaiaké said.
I hope I didn’t give anyone the impression that I was saying that. Far be it from me to tell other people how to use the language they’ve been speaking all their lives, but if I had to make a statement like that, it would be more like “You should speak with your situation in mind and modify your language appropriately.” Everyone has an idiolect (their own spin on the language), and it’s great to take pride in having your own style, but you have to be able to communicate with people.
Did you learn nothing from my “comments”? I packed them in with a lot of snark, for which I apologize. But I also tried to give you a lot of technical information about linguistics and the English language and I hoped people who didn’t have much background in it could learn something.
Then why are you putting down other people for speaking a different dialect? What makes Alabama English special? Just to make sure we’re clear, again, “Standard American English” (not “Standard English”, which is not what I said) is a technical term referring to the specific dialect considered “neutral” or “accentless” by most Americans. My use of the term “Standard American English” has nothing to do with the correctness or incorrectness of that or any other dialect. You and Zoe are imagining the negative connotation and charging at a windmill.
Back to my point: If you don’t think we should stigmatize Alabama English (and I agree, BTW), why is it OK for you to stigmatize other dialects? If you really think that, then you don’t actually agree with Zoe, because she (?) was arguing that we ought to view divergent dialects as equal.
What’s with this claim that I’m putting people down? Another person said I was looking down my nose at people. Gezzzzzz!
Yes, I did learn some things from all that you said. You’re a bright guy and said some good things for which I thank you.
P.S. My little comment about forgiving was a light, friendly, obnoxious little fun swipe and nothing more. 
So, how is ‘you sound like a bunch of hillbilly idiots’ not putting people down, hmm?
Yeah, my rephrasing was a bit fuzzy, but the meaning of “The way English speakers speak English = correct English” would have to be something like “The way English speakers speak English is an acceptable manner of speaking English, and as such there is no need or use in dissuading them from it.” There is very definitely a judgement of some sort in there, which gives an indication of behavior you intend to take. I was trying to point out that the meaning of the term “correct English”, as commonly used, is not as a mere label, such as that we could say “Fine, you prescriptivists are right on the one point. Those things are correct English, and those other things are not correct English, you’re right about what’s what, but who cares? I’m going to keep on using those things that aren’t correct English without a worry in the world.” That would be absurd on the common meaning of the term “correct” in this context*. My point was, in response to what I saw Frylock to be getting at, that whenever one makes any assertions about correct English, the meaning of those assertions is tied in to various behaviors one intends to take with regard to English, and so one cannot defend claims about what is and what isn’t correct English without also defending aspects of the associated behaviors; one cannot run to the aid of the prescriptivist with “Oh, it’s just a label. The truth is, these things do fall under that label of ‘correct English’ and these things don’t”, because, as I see it, that is at odds with how the word “correct” is actually used in this context. It’s true that the way “correct English” is commonly used, it is used with a prescriptive sense, but then, it’s also commonly used while accompanied with prescriptive behavior. And for those who use the term with a non-prescriptive sense, it generally comes along with non-prescriptive behavior. If one were to infer the normal use of the term “correct English”, it would be more accurate to say “It describes one’s stance and behavior with regard to a variety of linguistic issues, whatever that stance may be” than to say “It is meant to apply to those sorts of sentence constructions blessed by Strunk and White”.
*: Surely you do occasionally see people saying things like “Oh, I don’t care about speaking correctly”, but then, you also occasionally see people sayings things like “Oh, I intend to keep on doing things I know I shouldn’t” more generally. There still seems to me to be undeniably some sort of judgement buried in speech of this sort as it’s generally understood, and some, perhaps subtle to pin down, expected correlation between the assertions one makes about “correctness” and the relevant actions one undertakes, this expected correlation being part of the meaning of the word “correctness”.
Here’s how strict my grammatical upbringing was: I just spent the last several minutes unable to let go of this sentence, because my brain kept screaming "it’s as we not like us!
My mom was very big on enforcing proper grammar and I’m glad she was–it made it much easier for me when I had to write formally. Rules that other kids had to painstakingly memorize were to me obvious, because they just “sounded wrong” to me. Now that doesn’t mean I’m a walking, talking grammar textbook, but it does mean that it’s not too difficult to come up with phrasing that follows the “proper rules” when I need to. I don’t always do it when I’m writing informally, or (especially) when speaking, but I at least have the ability to draw on when it’s needed.
Because of that, I do the same thing to my son that my mom did to me: I correct him mercilessly. Never meanly or demeaningly, but I do try to make sure that he at least knows what the correct way to say something is, whether he chooses to use it or not.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about “like we Americans do”? (And, I suppose, for the sake of completeness, about “as us Americans do”?)
Chiming in on this one: to me, being from Arizona, “are” is like the beginning of “aardvark” and “our” the beginning sounds like “ow”. However, because of its placement in speech, it’s a word more likely to get squished/blended when speaking quickly than “hour” is, and so when I’m talking fast it may come out more as an “are” sound at times, whereas “hour” virtually never will, since “hour” is more likely to be the emphasized word in a sentence.
I also pronounce “your” and “you’re” slightly differently (your=yore and you’re=yoor) as well as there/their/they’re.
Here is a regionalism that I’ve got a question about:
My boyfriend is from Georgia, and he says things like “might could”. As in, “we might could go for a bike ride later”. The first time I heard it it sounded like some seriously backwater hillbilly talk, but I don’t really care if he says it (and I’ve gotten used to it now that I live in Georgia myself–it still sounds a little strange to me, but it doesn’t immediately put me in mind of some yokel chewing straw with his thumbs in his armpits). However, I’ve started pointing it out to him when he says it, because he’s in medical school and he’s going to be a doctor… and I think that he should be able to speak professionally when he needs to. If he chooses to say “might could” in casual conversation, that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be an automatic phrase that pops out when he’s surrounded by a bunch of highly educated professionals, for example. I think it would make people look down on him, or think he wasn’t as smart as they were. Am I being a pedantic stick in the mud? I am not trying to remove it from his vocabulary, just make him aware of it so that it’s something he says by choice and not by habit.
AFAIK, “like” is used only for a prepositional phrase, though in the same sentence casual speech, I might use it anyway. I wouldn’t, however, say “us Americans”… it just sounds weird to me. I very likely would say “like us” if that was the end of a sentence, though. “Shape up and speak properly without that incorrect accent, like us” even though it might not be technically correct. I wouldn’t write it that way in an English paper, but I’d say it in conversation.
You’ve chopped it out of context. C-O-N-T-E-X-T.
This entire thread is based on a premise of looking down your nose at some American English speakers and lauding others for using the language “correctly”. We all have areas we’re a little ignorant in–for example, I just found out today that Scots is its own language, when before I just thought it was an incomprehensible dialect of English. And I’ve had my ignorance fought on these Boards on a number of topics ranging from criminal law to transsexuality to shoe etiquette. I certainly didn’t always own up to my ignorance, but I think it would at least be a nice gesture if you’d try to understand where I’m coming from.
No worries, mate. Your point stood quite well, I was just clarifying my own post in case others had misunderstood me.
I’m certainly not the arbiter of the English language, but I agree. More info.
If you’re not willing to fight your ignorance, then at the very least, you should consider at this point that you’re really not helping your image.
I think things get significantly clearer when you bring up the fact that most linguists aren’t sure what a language is. There’s a famous saying which goes “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy,” and you can barely do any better when you get into the technical details. We can certainly identify speaker communities (such as alabama versus southern california versus east london english), and we can do this quite easily by looking at the typology at the sentence, word, and sound level. (Most linguists actually don’t know what a sentence or a word is, either, but that isn’t relevant here. ^^)
So although most linguists don’t have a reliable device for defining and identifying where one language ends and another begins, what they can do is classify languages. Classification isn’t 100% reliable, and it isn’t uncommon for extremely well-studied language families to be re-organized in significant ways as new evidence or argumentation comes to light. Anyway, most of the time when we talk about “standard english,” or “new jersey english,” what we’re actually referring to is the generally agreed upon taxonomy. (there is an ‘official’ dialect of american english, by the way. It’s usually called General American, and it’s spoken in eastern Nebraska, south-central Iowa, and northern Illinois. I’m also fairly certain that I’ve never actually heard this dialect spoken in my life.)
Anyway, back to the point. We can classify speaker communities based on the typology of their language, and speaker communities tend to be homogenous. The latter is is actually a really big concept in the so-called Principles and Parameters framework, as well as in language acquisition in general. Essentially what the minimalist program in particular and other theories of universal grammar in general claim is that the innateness of language, rather than being a literal language that is somehow biologically coded into babies before they’re even born, is a set of Principles which are common to all languages (stuff like ‘a sentence must always have a subject, whether or not it ends up being pronounced’) and Parameters which govern how the language’s syntax (sentence structure) operates and are responsible for the variability of the world’s languages. (This would be something like “So long as the subject is in the underlying representation (the version of the sentence that the speaker’s language center first lays out), it doesn’t have to be pronounced in the surface form (the sentence that is actually produced)”). So with principles and parameters in mind, we can say that all newborns start at a state S(0) in which they only have the principles, and finish up at a state S(n), at which point they’ve finished acquiring the parameters of their native language and are essentially fluent speakers. We posit that all human newborns are going to begin at the same state S(0), and all end up at state S(n), even though their individual learning experiences will be different.
Now, since we’re talking about speaker communities, it’s obvious that kids are going to learn individual rules from their surroundings. Principles are held by all speakers of all languages, so they won’t have any effect. Furthermore, the actual parameters which speakers will use to judge the grammaticality of a given sentence are going to be those which they acquired from the speaker community in which they were raised. With this in mind, it’s only obvious that regional variation is going to be a result of the dialect a speaker was raised in, and not their level education.
Is that helpful-ish?