Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you don't correct them how are they going to learn?
I think incorrect English interferes with comprehension of what the speaker is trying to say. For instance, I have seen clothing sellers online who describe something as "embellished with sequence" or this dress is "for sell". Yes, we can figure out what they are trying to say but it is annoying and it slows down the comprehension process to have to translate what they are saying.
So, yes, they can eventually be understood, but the communication is not as effective as it would have been if they had written it correctly in the first place.
(pounding fist--just came from a site on which someone talked about the whaling wall.....and I don't think they were referring to a fishing village either.)
By using a certain style of speech to, as you say, fit in, he is using effective communications to accomplish more than simply giving instructions. By using the same grammatical constructions as his employees he is communicating empathy and a sense of commonality; solidarity if you will. As such, wouldn't you consider that to be an important objective of language and communication?
I really don't see how he is communicating empathy, commonality or solidarity if they don't know the difference. He may be effectively communicating instructions, but those instructions would not be lost if he used proper grammar. He is undercutting his own standards so as not to be viewed as an "elitist". It is "dumbing down" to fit in, not to be understood. It reminds me of a black friend of mine who says she is accused occasionally of "talking white". When she refuses to use "ebonics", she is viewed as an elitist, an Uncle Tom. Never mind that she has achieved professional heights that few of her peers have.
I think that your argument is as old as complaints about the overall decline of society, which are about as old as society to begin with. Again, there is justification for being upset about grammatical and spelling errors which make communication intelligible, and a Teutonic adherence to rules that actually just get in the way.
Just because they are old does not invalidate them. The "adherence to rules" provides a baseline that measures how far we have strayed. We have a beautiful language that demands standards if we are to preserve it.
One last thought, for the moment, we admire rule breaking in all the arts, music, painting etc, especially if it gives us a new, and fresh viewpoint. Why doesn't this apply to the written word?
Arts, music, painting etc. have never had written standards that serve as guidelines. There is no set of rules that apply to these creative endeavors. And there shouldn't be. These are universal expressions of creativity, whereas language is not. The English language is our common currency and as such, requires preservation with standards and rules. Once understood, these rules can be bent, even broken. But the baseline must be preserved if the language is to survive.
(pounding fist--just came from a site on which someone talked about the whaling wall.....and I don't think they were referring to a fishing village either.)
I am now picturing large numbers of guys in dark suits with black hats, beards, curly hair hanging down from beside the ears and large harpoons over their shoulders, doing little bows as they pray rather than prey.
Hmmm. Maybe that's why we ended up with Moby Dick rather than, say, Moby Bernie.
[b]Arts, music, painting etc. have never had written standards that serve as guidelines.
Oh, that is so untrue! There have most definitely been rules of composition, rules regarding the use of certain harmonic structures. What do you think arts and music schools have been teaching for all these years? Have you never heard of the Rule of Thirds.
Quote:
There is no set of rules that apply to these creative endeavors. And there shouldn't be. These are universal expressions of creativity, whereas language is not.
I couldn't disagree more. Lyrics, poetry/rap, are just two creative expressions of language, they do not adhere to any grammatical rules with any great regularity yet are some of the most power expressions of/in any language.
Quote:
The English language is our common currency and as such, requires preservation with standards and rules.
Ah, the strict constructionist vs the living language argument. If we accept that Shakespeare was the greatest writer of the English language, then by that standard we should all be speaking and writing in Elizabethan English.
Quote:
Once understood, these rules can be bent, even broken.
On this point, whether it is art (and I consider writing an art) or anything else for that matter, I couldn't agree more.
By using a certain style of speech to, as you say, fit in, he is using effective communications to accomplish more than simply giving instructions. By using the same grammatical constructions as his employees he is communicating empathy and a sense of commonality; solidarity if you will. As such, wouldn't you consider that to be an important objective of language and communication?
I think that your argument is as old as complaints about the overall decline of society, which are about as old as society to begin with. Again, there is justification for being upset about grammatical and spelling errors which make communication intelligible, and a Teutonic adherence to rules that actually just get in the way.
One last thought, for the moment, we admire rule breaking in all the arts, music, painting etc, especially if it gives us a new, and fresh viewpoint. Why doesn't this apply to the written word?
It equates to illiteracy and lack of education, that simple. Reading the written word is in a category by itself.
Could you read an entire book written in nothing but slang terms?
Could you read an entire book written in nothing but slang terms?
Very possibly. It would depend on how fluent I was with the slang being presented.
To take you point to another extreme, when I read some technical or business journals, I would swear that the entire thing is written in slang. And, I'd be damned if the same doesn't hold true for far too many articles written by academics.
Ah, inevitably the conversation goes to "code-switching". It's not just an African American thing. This is a universal phenomenon.
I think we can regard language as skin and wardrobe, and either comparison works to both sides of the issue. Language is a living, breathing art that regenerates, and has scars. It's perfectly imperfect. It also evolves in style. I appreciate that about it. But to know and accept common rules of language is also social currency. We don't tattoo our children or dress them inappropriately. If one does, it's to separate from society. Or when the children grow up and decide to do it themselves, let's face it, it's also to turn away from convention. And even if or when full body tattoos become normative there will be further body modification extremes for them again to separate themselves from the pack, because you can bet that in this far off tattooed future there will have developed new standards and conventions. There will always be. Even now, though, people know well enough to dress appropriately, covering those full ink sleeves when the environment calls for it. To code-switch.
That's just an analogy, though. This is the current problem, for me. I go back to having tutored and trying to convince someone that "between she and I" is wrong, when even newscasters and politicians say it. How could I tell her it's wrong then? Was it for I to know and her to find out? If I can't get it into she's mind that the rules are actually correct and consistent, that us just don't throw pronouns to the wind and let meaning stick where it will, then her obviously will feel free to toss out all the rules to language. And where does it end? Why let it evolve and self-correct, and scar over, when we can correct it now and make it easy on all of us? I pity English teachers.
ETA: On the subject of art and expression I've always found that real genius is to know the rules first, then break them.
Language and its rules do in fact evolve - but the evolved rules are still rules. There is an immense difference between changing rules (as in putting up new speed limit signs) and ignoring rules (as in speeding).
Poor writing stems either from ignorance or indifference. Ignorance can almost - but not quite - be excused these days due to the woeful state of public education. Indifference, on the other hand, is unforgivable; no amount of ratiocination can justify it.
Hmmm. Maybe that's why we ended up with Moby Dick rather than, say, Moby Bernie.
And now we pledge allegiance to the flag...and to the Republic for Richard Stands...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
