4 ms·
> Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively. What is wrong with promoting correct use of English? As has been mentioned elsewhere, language is const
by shkkmo 5y ago
> Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively. What is wrong with promoting correct use of English?
As has been mentioned elsewhere, language is constantly changing. It isn't even that slow of a process. As a result the vast majority of linguists view linguistics as a descriptive rather than prescriptive science. The "prescriptive" approach to linguistics is much more common among teachers but hopefully that is also being tempered.
The reason why this matters is because prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination.
I think there is a fine line to walk here. If you are going to fight against the changing of language, you need a good reason. I personally really dislike the confusion of "literal" and "figurative" (where "literal" now figuratively means "figurative") because it clearlt reduces the expressivity of the language. In contrast, the advent of "irregardless" doesn't reduce the expressivity of the language (though it foes add some minor complexity as it is an annoying exception in the meaning of the "ir" prefix.) Similarly, the common use of "me" instead of "I" in "and" clauses is commonly touted as a misuse of language even though I have never encountered as usage where it added ambiguity and is extremely common. I've had people tell me they take it as a marker of low intelligence while those same people will make a very similar mistake by switching "me" for "myself" in and clauses.
I do think there is value in teaching people about the historical and cross-cultural uses of language, as this increases our ability to understand eachother. I also think there are times where we should push back against language shifts that descrease the effectiveness of the language. However, I think it has to be done with care to avoid perpetuating injustice and becoming irrelevant as the real language in use shifts.
In your particular case, you seem to be denying the existence of fairly commonly used phrases that don't actually have any negative impact on the information carrying ability of the language.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago> prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination. This is a sloppy argument. Nothing about teaching correct English enforces discrimination and in fact it does the opposite by leveling the playing field. If one day teachers stopped teaching grammar, that would only worsen the linguistic shift across the races and classes, allowing them to more easily discriminate between each other. Even if you want to erase the idea that there is a “correct” English, the inevitable presence of the differences in speech will regress the concept to “my tribe’s English” and eventually “my tribe’s language.” Teaching and promoting a standard and correct English promotes a more liberal society. I’m puzzled that sloppy arguments like the one you made above continually permeate culture when it only takes a few logical steps to see how it results in an outcome opposite to what you want.
- dcminter 5y agoRant all you want, but if P.G.Wodehouse uses a phrase it's good enough for me.
- CyberRabbi 5y agoP.G.Wodehouse cites “for a lark” which is correct. He does not cite “as a lark” nor does your other source.
- shkkmo 5y ago> “my tribe’s English” That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english. I am not saying that there aren't advatages to teaching people about other tribe's dialects. If you combine that with inclusive policies you can merge dialects. When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift. I see nothing sloppy about my argument and I don't think that particular word (especially when you make no effort to explain what is "sloppy") is more of an ad hominem attack than perhaps you intended.
- CyberRabbi 5y agoIt’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. You and I both know that not teaching a standard English or pretending like one does not exist would only worsen language-based discrimination. > When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift. How exactly would that happen? It would provide a means for other dialects to adopt the standard dialect and communicate with the wider community. That’s the opposite of increasing linguistic drift. In the situation you’re suggesting, you’re expecting everyone to understand and communicate in every other dialect simultaneously. That’s just an unrealistic expectation. > That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english. I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English. Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal and speak the standard English so that we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations. Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python. That would be silly yet that is what you are suggesting. Obviously having a single agreed-upon dialect of Python is beneficial to everyone and it shouldn’t be personally offensive to recommend that people program in standard Python.