When linguists write about the differences between the descriptivist approach (which is currently favored) and the prescriptivist approach (which is regarded as dogmatic and illogical like religion) to language usage, they often mention that any talk of descriptivism tends to draw “visceral reactions” even from educated people. Descriptive linguistics means that rules on language usage ought to be based on popular usage rather than on the opinions of a few, and prescriptive grammar (the word “prescriptive” cannot be applied to linguistics) means there are such things as correct and incorrect usages. (In other words, descriptivism describes, and prescriptivism prescribes and proscribes.)
This is not an essay defending the one position or the other, but rather a confession: I, too, have often experienced “visceral reactions” when descriptivism was brought up, and I think I know why. In a way it is based on the same sort of elitism that the world at large condemns. One of the descriptivist objections to prescriptivism is that it promotes the sort of language used by the rich and the powerful as “correct”, at the expense of the language of the common man (I would like to mention here that it is only out of contempt for political correctness of any form and for stylistic reasons that I use the word “man”, and not out of misogyny), which act would strike any thinking person as unjust.
My elitism is not centered on wealth but rather on education. To me it seems unfair that someone who has made the effort to learn the intricacies of the language by reading and studying and observing should be regarded as neither better nor worse at the language than someone who is uneducated. Some things in this world are axiomatically better than others. Being educated is better than being uneducated; being healthy is better than being ill; being moral is better than being immoral, and so forth. While language may legitimately not have a normative system similar to ethics (which is what descriptivists contend, or rather pontificate), “visceral reactions” from people who have value hierarchies seem unsurprising to me. To elaborate further, this seems another instance of aspersing the virtuous, the intelligent, and the strong to make the vicious, the stupid, and the weak feel good about themselves that has become so fashionable in today’s “progressive”, emotion-oriented world. It may not be so in this case, but some may interpret it in this way.
My second objection is that descriptivists call their ideology (for, really, that is what it is) scientific when it suits them and outside the realm of science at other times. In the same way they use historical usage to defend certain modern linguistic practices when it suits them, and inveigh against this tendency when it does not. The use of double negatives (“You didn’t say nothing.” = “You said nothing.”) is supported (even promoted) because “language does not follow rules of logic”, and so double negatives do not cancel each other out. (Except when they do, of course, such as in: “That is not bad.” = “That is good.”) Many descriptivists like adding at this point that even Chaucer used double negatives in this way, so it has been in use for a long time. This argument undermines the basic descriptivist premise, which is that the language usage of one period should not be compared to that of an older period. Descriptivists, evidently, are allowed to say that double negatives have been in use for at least 700 years, but prescriptivists are not allowed to say that Victorian writers used the nominative form of pronouns as the noun complements of copulative verbs, and that they used the nominative form after words like “than” and “as”, even when not followed by a verb (“I am older than he”, “I am as good as he”).
Descriptivism is also impossible in pedagogy. Teaching someone a language (even if one euphemistically say that one is merely giving him suggestions based on the speech of native speakers) is perforce prescriptivist in nature. A student who knows only the word “apple” and nothing more is not obliged to expand his vocabulary. Encouraging him to do so in any way is directing him to use the language in a certain way: that is, telling him how it ought to be used. The only difference between prescriptivist and descriptivist grammars when it comes to pedagogy is that the former contains rules that were formulated a long time ago and the latter contains rules that were formulated recently (maybe even an hour ago). Calling those rules “observed conventions” does not change what they are.
My final objection (by final I mean the last objection I have that I can think of at the moment to descriptivism rather than descriptive linguistics) is that descriptivists encourage nonstandard usage (what people in another age would have called “bad grammar” or “incorrect usage”), and discourage tendencies to using an older variety of the language for any reason, on the logic that change is good because inevitable, and that those who use old-fashioned language are bigots, elitists, snooty, haughty, and the sort of people who believe that “homeopathy can cure their brain cancer”.
I would rather be a martyr for my preferred variety of the language than adopt every new neologism that sprouts mushroom-like from the caprices of the uncomprehending collective mind of modern society – would rather perish with self-respect than prostrate myself before the barbaric, procrustean whims of the mob. On that perhaps over-dramatic note, I end this rant.
Addendum: Earlier I came across this article in The New Republic condemning Mitt Romney (who is likely to be the next President of America) for, of all things, his choice of words. Now, a lot of people disagree with his policies, and dislike the way in which he apparently changed his views sharply before running for the Republican Party nomination. But to criticize him for being too "formal" and "over-sanitised" (the latter adjective is from a blog that contained a link to the New Republic article in one of its articles) in a world in which language is getting "warmer" is the height of stupidity.
I am aware that Romney made some remarks that reflected a lack of concern for the poor. (What they were, I have forgotten.) But to say that that his language is formal (relatively formal, I would say) is an indication that he does not care about the poor is committing a logical fallacy: namely, ignoratio elenchi (the fallacy of distraction), and moreover extremely stupid. What the author of this disgraceful article is saying is that unless one talks like an uneducated beggar one cannot claim to have any concern for the poor. This is even more ridiculous than the assertion that one cannot have any concern for the poor unless one is poor, since it is absolutely irrelevant to the issue.
The author obviously thinks, like many sanctimonious liberals today, that emotions matter more than intelligence, and that empathy is a more powerful force than logic. If powerful be that which sways mindless mobs, then I suppose emotions are powerful: but by the same token they are evil. To exalt the evil is the most disgraceful thing one can do. Selflessness of the sort that is not even humanly possible is affected nowadays, not in order to benefit the poor and the needy in any real way, but to appear virtuous at the expense of the unmoved bystander. This is entirely self-serving, and is even more disgusting than helping others merely to extort their gratitude and become an object of their veneration.
Returning to the article now:
This high priest of self-abnegating conformity pronounces with his infinite wisdom that, since the modern American tends to use vulgar words, anyone who does not use vulgar words necessarily has an agenda to oppress the poor, and must be duly ostracized. Also, we must use "man" and "dude" at every chance we get, because we humans in our proper and natural state are beggars in the street, entirely at the mercy of the elements and of our gloriously barbaric peers, and the only way in which to survive is by soliciting the approval and winning the favor of the despotic mob we are injoined to love; and perfect usage is that which reflects our joy at being thus trodden upon, our pride in being incapable of taking two steps without seeking the approval of the next man who passes us. Who is Mitt Romney to refuse to be part of the mindless mob?
The fact is that most of us who do not use vulgar words are not exercising an unnatural amount of self-restraint in order to do so and to appear superior to those who do, and don't criticize those of our peers who do use vulgar words. (Incidentally the people I know who use vulgar words don't care what people think of their speech, which contradicts what the learned author of this article suggests is the purpose of using profanity.)
I can see that language has warmed up, and bemoan it. Formal language had the virtue of giving one a feeling of privacy. And it is not as if formal language were used in every situation in the past. Now one has people who claim to assess one's problems better than oneself, and help one against one's will, all the while thinking themselves virtuous for doing so. People of self-respect value their independence above much if not all else. The artificial warmth of modern language, when interpreted in the way the omniscient prophet who wrote this article orders the reader to interpret it, is absolutely sickening, like Professor Umbridge.
I hardly think anyone in his right mind would choose Professor Umbridge over Professor McGonagall, even if the latter be stern and hard most of the time. The qualities that we admire in people are usually those that make them stand out.
If Mitt Romney is disliked because he lacks warmth, then the declension of human civilization is without a shadow of a doubt upon us, starting with America.
This is not an essay defending the one position or the other, but rather a confession: I, too, have often experienced “visceral reactions” when descriptivism was brought up, and I think I know why. In a way it is based on the same sort of elitism that the world at large condemns. One of the descriptivist objections to prescriptivism is that it promotes the sort of language used by the rich and the powerful as “correct”, at the expense of the language of the common man (I would like to mention here that it is only out of contempt for political correctness of any form and for stylistic reasons that I use the word “man”, and not out of misogyny), which act would strike any thinking person as unjust.
My elitism is not centered on wealth but rather on education. To me it seems unfair that someone who has made the effort to learn the intricacies of the language by reading and studying and observing should be regarded as neither better nor worse at the language than someone who is uneducated. Some things in this world are axiomatically better than others. Being educated is better than being uneducated; being healthy is better than being ill; being moral is better than being immoral, and so forth. While language may legitimately not have a normative system similar to ethics (which is what descriptivists contend, or rather pontificate), “visceral reactions” from people who have value hierarchies seem unsurprising to me. To elaborate further, this seems another instance of aspersing the virtuous, the intelligent, and the strong to make the vicious, the stupid, and the weak feel good about themselves that has become so fashionable in today’s “progressive”, emotion-oriented world. It may not be so in this case, but some may interpret it in this way.
My second objection is that descriptivists call their ideology (for, really, that is what it is) scientific when it suits them and outside the realm of science at other times. In the same way they use historical usage to defend certain modern linguistic practices when it suits them, and inveigh against this tendency when it does not. The use of double negatives (“You didn’t say nothing.” = “You said nothing.”) is supported (even promoted) because “language does not follow rules of logic”, and so double negatives do not cancel each other out. (Except when they do, of course, such as in: “That is not bad.” = “That is good.”) Many descriptivists like adding at this point that even Chaucer used double negatives in this way, so it has been in use for a long time. This argument undermines the basic descriptivist premise, which is that the language usage of one period should not be compared to that of an older period. Descriptivists, evidently, are allowed to say that double negatives have been in use for at least 700 years, but prescriptivists are not allowed to say that Victorian writers used the nominative form of pronouns as the noun complements of copulative verbs, and that they used the nominative form after words like “than” and “as”, even when not followed by a verb (“I am older than he”, “I am as good as he”).
Descriptivism is also impossible in pedagogy. Teaching someone a language (even if one euphemistically say that one is merely giving him suggestions based on the speech of native speakers) is perforce prescriptivist in nature. A student who knows only the word “apple” and nothing more is not obliged to expand his vocabulary. Encouraging him to do so in any way is directing him to use the language in a certain way: that is, telling him how it ought to be used. The only difference between prescriptivist and descriptivist grammars when it comes to pedagogy is that the former contains rules that were formulated a long time ago and the latter contains rules that were formulated recently (maybe even an hour ago). Calling those rules “observed conventions” does not change what they are.
My final objection (by final I mean the last objection I have that I can think of at the moment to descriptivism rather than descriptive linguistics) is that descriptivists encourage nonstandard usage (what people in another age would have called “bad grammar” or “incorrect usage”), and discourage tendencies to using an older variety of the language for any reason, on the logic that change is good because inevitable, and that those who use old-fashioned language are bigots, elitists, snooty, haughty, and the sort of people who believe that “homeopathy can cure their brain cancer”.
I would rather be a martyr for my preferred variety of the language than adopt every new neologism that sprouts mushroom-like from the caprices of the uncomprehending collective mind of modern society – would rather perish with self-respect than prostrate myself before the barbaric, procrustean whims of the mob. On that perhaps over-dramatic note, I end this rant.
Addendum: Earlier I came across this article in The New Republic condemning Mitt Romney (who is likely to be the next President of America) for, of all things, his choice of words. Now, a lot of people disagree with his policies, and dislike the way in which he apparently changed his views sharply before running for the Republican Party nomination. But to criticize him for being too "formal" and "over-sanitised" (the latter adjective is from a blog that contained a link to the New Republic article in one of its articles) in a world in which language is getting "warmer" is the height of stupidity.
“Only connect,” E.M. Forster told us, and poor Mitt Romney just can’t, alienating the left by spelling out that he doesn’t care about the downtrodden and dissing the right by describing himself as “severely conservative.” But Romney’s lack of personal warmth goes further than his remarks—or coiffure, or pet care—and right down to his interjections.
I am aware that Romney made some remarks that reflected a lack of concern for the poor. (What they were, I have forgotten.) But to say that that his language is formal (relatively formal, I would say) is an indication that he does not care about the poor is committing a logical fallacy: namely, ignoratio elenchi (the fallacy of distraction), and moreover extremely stupid. What the author of this disgraceful article is saying is that unless one talks like an uneducated beggar one cannot claim to have any concern for the poor. This is even more ridiculous than the assertion that one cannot have any concern for the poor unless one is poor, since it is absolutely irrelevant to the issue.
The author obviously thinks, like many sanctimonious liberals today, that emotions matter more than intelligence, and that empathy is a more powerful force than logic. If powerful be that which sways mindless mobs, then I suppose emotions are powerful: but by the same token they are evil. To exalt the evil is the most disgraceful thing one can do. Selflessness of the sort that is not even humanly possible is affected nowadays, not in order to benefit the poor and the needy in any real way, but to appear virtuous at the expense of the unmoved bystander. This is entirely self-serving, and is even more disgusting than helping others merely to extort their gratitude and become an object of their veneration.
Returning to the article now:
The modern American, even if he or she has one of Romney’s Harvard degrees, often uses today’s version of profanity in the slots where Romney slides his G-words. A more, shall we say, vibrant translation of “Gee, I hope not” would be “Shit, I hope not,” and in “This was back, oh gosh, probably in the late ’70s,” “hell” would be substituted for the “oh gosh,” especially after a beer or two. Or, even in more buttoned-up moments, our versions of those sentences might include “Man, I hope not,” and especially for those under about 40, “Dude, I don’t know much about your faith.” Man and dude both reach out to the interlocutor seeking agreement. Man and dude are, at heart, solicitations—“You know what I mean, man/dude?”
This high priest of self-abnegating conformity pronounces with his infinite wisdom that, since the modern American tends to use vulgar words, anyone who does not use vulgar words necessarily has an agenda to oppress the poor, and must be duly ostracized. Also, we must use "man" and "dude" at every chance we get, because we humans in our proper and natural state are beggars in the street, entirely at the mercy of the elements and of our gloriously barbaric peers, and the only way in which to survive is by soliciting the approval and winning the favor of the despotic mob we are injoined to love; and perfect usage is that which reflects our joy at being thus trodden upon, our pride in being incapable of taking two steps without seeking the approval of the next man who passes us. Who is Mitt Romney to refuse to be part of the mindless mob?
The fact is that most of us who do not use vulgar words are not exercising an unnatural amount of self-restraint in order to do so and to appear superior to those who do, and don't criticize those of our peers who do use vulgar words. (Incidentally the people I know who use vulgar words don't care what people think of their speech, which contradicts what the learned author of this article suggests is the purpose of using profanity.)
Language has warmed up a great deal. Romney’s God-fearing, impersonal G-words, then, reveal him as linguistically a person of another time, in which the public mood was cooler than today’s. That can be a good thing. Even Father Coughlin would not have called an earnest young woman, or anyone else, a slut on the radio. Yet the fact remains that there are few better ways to connote the air of a mannequin in 2012 than by saying gosh with a straight face.
I can see that language has warmed up, and bemoan it. Formal language had the virtue of giving one a feeling of privacy. And it is not as if formal language were used in every situation in the past. Now one has people who claim to assess one's problems better than oneself, and help one against one's will, all the while thinking themselves virtuous for doing so. People of self-respect value their independence above much if not all else. The artificial warmth of modern language, when interpreted in the way the omniscient prophet who wrote this article orders the reader to interpret it, is absolutely sickening, like Professor Umbridge.
I hardly think anyone in his right mind would choose Professor Umbridge over Professor McGonagall, even if the latter be stern and hard most of the time. The qualities that we admire in people are usually those that make them stand out.
If Mitt Romney is disliked because he lacks warmth, then the declension of human civilization is without a shadow of a doubt upon us, starting with America.
0 comments :
Post a Comment