DueRead: Understanding English Grammar, Chapter 1Meeting PlaceWe will meet this week in Dial 153. Please bring your copy of Understanding English Grammar.Optional WorkshopFor extra help learning to publish a Web page, please attend a workshop I will give on Wednesday, January 17, in Dial 149. Bring two diskettes. |
January 15-19, 2001Now that you have created and posted the index page for your portfolio and have set up the framework for your grammar guide, we are ready to embark on our exploration of English grammar. We begin with a question: What is grammar? You may be surprised by the answer.As always, you should read both the assignment at the left and the material below before coming to class. In class, we will do the exercise below and discuss concepts related to this subject. |
| All
American
>Modern America >>American English Terms
PeopleResourcesLinguistics for Teachers introduces non-experts to important topics in the study of language, including Standard English, Black English, and the teaching of grammar.The New Fowler's Modern English Usage makes judgments, many of them arcane, about "correct" grammar and usage. An Introduction to Language provides an excellent introduction to phonology, morphology, syntax, grammar, and other elements of linguistics. Updated
January 29, 2001
|
GrammarBy Mark CanadaEnglish professor, University of North Carolina at Pembroke Few Americans escape school without some understanding of grammar. For most, this understanding amounts to a murky sense of something called "good grammar" and a nagging fear that they don't have it. In other words, they have a sense of what is more properly called "prescriptive grammar," a set of "rules" governing the choice of who and whom, the use of ain't, and other such matters. Promoted by Jonathan Swift and other literary figures of the 18th century, this approach to language prescribes the "correct" way to use language. Many English speakers haunted by prescriptive grammar might be surprised and a little relieved to learn that most scholars who study language today are more interested in what they call "descriptive grammar," which is the study of the ways human use systems--particularly syntax and morphology--to communicate through language. Instead of establishing and enforcing lists of rules about language, these scholars try to describe the system by which humans communicate. Indeed, they know from their study of English and other languages that language continually changes and that today's serious writers regularly make what Swift and others would have labeled mistakes in the 1700s. These modern scholars are known as linguists, people who study language. The most famous modern linguist is American Noam Chomsky, known for his work on what has come to be called transformational grammar. Linguists such as Chomsky study various components of language, including phonology, the study of sounds used in languages; morphology, the study of word formation; semantics, the study of meaning; psycholinguistics, the study of the way the brain processes language; and sociolinguistics, the study of language in society, particularly subjects such as dialect, euphemism, and slang. Linguists study language in the same way biologists study plant or animal life. A serious biologist does not say that mammals are not supposed to fly and chastise all the world's bats for breaking the rules; rather, they study an organism's actions and try to understand why it acts as it does. Likewise, linguists try to understand how and why humans communicate through language. Which is right, prescriptive or descriptive grammar? A better question might be "What can we learn from each?" For example, while today's linguists are careful not to say a word or sentence is "correct" or "incorrect," virtually all professional Americans--including teachers, journalists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, scientists, and business executives--realize that some forms of English are appropriate for business letters, reports, job interviews, resumes, books, and magazines, while others are not. They know to say, "She has never done it" instead "She ain't never done it" when talking to a prospective employer or writing a report. In other words, in their professional dealings, they try to communicate in Standard English--a dialect of English that generally obeys the "rules" set down by prescriptive grammarians--not because this English is inherently better than other dialects, but because it is widely accepted as the language of professional Americans. In The Origins and Development of the English Language, Thomas Pyles and John Algeo define a standard language as "one that is used widely, in many places and for many purposes; it is also one that enjoys high prestige, one that people regard as 'good' language; it is described in dictionaries and grammar books and is taught in schools" (229). Prescriptive grammar, then, can help us master Standard English so that we can communicate effectively when we speak or write to other professionals. Descriptive grammar, on the other hand, can help us to understand the way humans communicate, even the way we think. By studying the way humans speak, linguists have reached some interesting and valuable conclusions about subjects such as language acquisition--the process by which babies learn their language. Furthermore, studying the number of ways English speakers package information in words, phrases, and clauses can help students improve their own speaking and writing, making their communication clearer and more engaging. On a broader level, linguistics gives us insights into many other fields. The more we know about dialect, slang, language acquisition, and other linguistic phenomena, the more we know about politics, identity, education, and a hundred other fields. Language plays a role in virtually every human endeavor; we would do well to understand it. Rhetorical Uses of Standard and Nonstandard EnglishAs noted above, Standard English is the brand of English generally used by professional English speakers and writers. Actually, we might even discriminate among several varieties of Standard English--Standard American English, Standard Written English, and so on--depending on the context of communication. After all, British speakers say some things that Americans do not say, and written and spoken English differ in some ways. In fact, James C. Stalker has noted that many linguists believe there really is no single standard of English. In "A Reconsideration of the Definition of Standard English," Stalker writes:Because we can find no stable list of features that appears in all occurences of language use accepted as standard, the best assumption seems to be either that standard English simply does not exist, obviously a position frequently held, particularly by linguists, or that we simply must accept the notion that standard is defined entirely by the context in which it occurs. The latter position seems tantamount to saying that there is no standard English, but rather a number of acceptable variants of English. (465)Stalker goes on to make a compelling case for viewing Standard English not as a single dialect, but rather as "an attitude toward language use based on the principle of accommodation, of adjustment--a process rather than a product" (465). Thus, one professional might use "whomever" where another would use "whoever"; no single standard form exists. Nevertheless, most linguists--as well as professionals who use both written and spoken English in formal settings--probably would agree a fairly broad definition of "Standard English." For example, politicians, newscasters, and business executives generally say "am not" instead of "ain't," "have gone" instead of "have went," and "the book says" instead of "the book say" when they are giving speeches, reporting the news, writing letters, or otherwise communicating as professionals. One way to use Standard English as a rhetorical tool, then, is to master its conventions so as to identify oneself as an insider. A man who wears a business suit to a job interview for a position at a bank , seems to "fit in" more than the man who wears a tank top and shorts. For similar reasons, the person who says, "I know a lot about those computers" in the same interview probably will fit in more than the one who says, "I knows a lot about them computers." In some cases, however, nonstandard English might prove more rhetorically effective. A politician speaking to a group of speakers of nonstandard English, for example, might seek to connect with these speakers by deliberately using nonstandard forms, as in saying, "There ain't nothing wrong with this county." Literary Uses of Standard and Nonstandard EnglishWhen writing narrative from a third-person point of view, most American writers use Standard English. A typical sentence from Mark Twain's novel The Adventures of Tom Sawyer illustrates this point: "Tom's whole structure of faith was shaken to its foundations" (476). On other hand, Twain and other writers frequently use nonstandard English when writing dialogue or first-person narration. Watch what happens when Twain presents an exchange between Tom and Huck in the same novel:"That's bully. Plenty bully enough for me. Just you gimme the hundred dollars and I don't want no di'monds."In this dialogue, Twain uses a handful of nonstandard forms, including the double negative in "I don't want no di'monds" and "ain't" for "am not" to capture the feel of Tom's and Huck's speech. In other words, the dialogue sounds more realistic because it employs the same nonstandard language that real boys of the time actually used. Furthermore, writers can effectively use nonstandard and Standard English to convey information about a character's social status. For instance, a writer might have a character speak in nonstandard English to show that he does not belong to the establishment. Works CitedPyles, Thomas, and John Algeo. The Origins and Development of the English Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993.Stalker, James C. "A Reconsideration of the Definition of Standard English." Problems of Standardization and Variation in Present Day English. Ed. Gerhaud Nickel and James C. Stalker. Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos Verlag, 1986. 50-58. Rpt. in Linguistics for Teachers. Ed. Linda Miller Cleary and Michael D. Linn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993. 465-473. Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. The
Unabridged Mark Twain. Ed. Lawrence Teacher. Philadelphia:
The Running Press, 1976. 437-585.
ExerciseRead the following passage and analyze it from the standpoint of a linguist. What is distinctive about the morphology, phonology, and syntax? Do you see any examples of semantic ambiguity? What sociolinguistic phenomena does the passage illustrate?MAKING them pens was a distressid tough job, and so was the saw; and Jim allowed the inscription was going to be the toughest of all. That's the one which the prisoner has to scrabble on the wall. But he had to have it; Tom said he'd got to; there warn't no case of a state prisoner not scrabbling his inscription to leave behind, and his coat of arms.(Text courtesy of University of Toronto English Library) |