5 ms·

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. Which is true for some definitions of mistake, and

by pg 17y ago

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. Which is true for some definitions of mistake, and false for others. The problem with the definitions that make it true is that there's a slippery slope from dialects to idiolects. How many people have to speak a dialect for it to count as a dialect? You can't have any threshold, or you get weird consequences in hypothetical cases, like all the speakers of a dialect dying off except one. So if you decide that no vernacular can embody mistakes, you're bound to conclude that nothing any individual does can be a mistake, so long as they do it consistently.

stcredzero 17y ago
You can't have any threshold, or you get weird consequences in hypothetical cases, like all the speakers of a dialect dying off except one. So if you decide that no vernacular can embody mistakes, you're bound to conclude that nothing any individual does can be a mistake, so long as they do it consistently. But lots of disciplines involving living things have problems like this. You can't "define" species. A species is a historical happenstance, which can only be precisely defined in retrospect with minute information we usually never have access to. You can spend all day coming up with corner cases and boundary conditions where any such attempt breaks down. But that's like deciding if a particular boulder in Panama is a North American one or a South American one. Just because those terms break down in boundary cases and are not like mathematics doesn't mean those terms aren't useful. Things pertaining to human beings and culture are even more prone to this. In the case of African American vernacular, there are sizable populations with high degrees of consistency in their patterns of speech. Quite far away from boundary conditions. Another thing I've noted, since dating an African American woman and attending family gatherings with her, is that the manners and rules of social conduct of rural African Americans are more complex than I am accustomed to. When I am with her family, I have to think about how I'm going to excuse myself and navigate leaving a room. Otherwise, I never think about this. I reflected on this, and realized that it reminded me of watching Masterpiece Theater as a child. I'm probably witnessing throwbacks to French and English culture from centuries ago, still rippling though rural Louisiana. Homo Sapiens are complex -- period. Even many so-called "country bumpkins."
- jacobolus 17y ago
  > manners and rules of social conduct of rural African Americans are more complex than I am accustomed to Is that increased complexity, or merely lack of familiarity? I imagine someone coming to a large gathering of your family would also feel like there were new subtle rules to learn, etc. I know that I have to think more about myself when I'm stuck in an unfamiliar social setting than in one I've spent lots of time in.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Actual increased complexity. "Crossing in front of" someone is socially significant, where it usually isn't for me. Addressing people is absolutely required when leaving the room, not just a good idea. There are more manifestations of the difference between children and adults. There are more unspoken rules, not just different ones.
- pg 17y ago
  I don't disagree with anything that you say here, and yet you seem to be disagreeing with me, which is odd. You seem to think I'm naively making some argument that depends on the words breaking down at boundary conditions. Actually I'm not. I believe a language spoken by just two people (or even one) is just as real a language as one spoken by millions-- that the difference in the way they're treated is a matter of politics, not the intrinsic qualities of the language.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    I believe a language spoken by just two people (or even one) is just as real a language as one spoken by millions-- that the difference in the way they're treated is a matter of politics, not the intrinsic qualities of the language. I was also trying to provide support to the notion that, "the difference in the way they're treated is a matter of politics." Often, I'm replying to 3rd parties or countering common misconceptions in my "replies," which is probably trying to say too much in one post as well as leaving too much implicit. In other words, I am grinding an axe here, but it's not directed at you. A language spoken by exactly two would be very difficult to study. There are problems analogous to studying a species with only the last two individuals from which to draw data. I think there is some mechanism here that links the softer fields inextricably with politics. There is less academic "territory" to occupy, and so there is a handicap to the political power of academics who study that particular data, while at the same time, there's also often increased power that stems from scarcity. (Dead sea scrolls.) EDIT: All human endeavors are linked with politics. "Softer" fields tend to be more encumbered.
algorias 17y ago
"you're bound to conclude that nothing any individual does can be a mistake, so long as they do it consistently." This is exactly how languages evolve over time, actually. A group of individuals makes changes ("mistakes"), and is consistent in the usage of the new ("mistaken") forms over a given period of time. If you didn't accept that, you'd be forced to conclude that we're all just very bad speakers of our modern languages' predecessors.
req2 17y ago
This is simply a problem with definitions, though. Whether mistake or habit, or language, dialect, or idiolect, what matters is the part that comes after. People still study the Akkadian language, despite its lack of speakers.
a-priori 17y ago
What this argument doesn't account for is that there are universal rules that underlie all human languages -- even so-called "idiolects". When languages mutate, as they do constantly, they do so only within these rules. I'm speaking here of X-bar theory, bare phrase structure, and so on. In effect, we're hard-wired to process language, and so are constrained by the limits of that wiring. A mutation ("mistake") that violates these rules will not 'stick', because the resulting language would be unintelligible to humans.
aristus 17y ago
A standard joke about that: a dialect is an ideolect with a history and body of literature. A language is a dialect with an army and a navy. Language is an instrument of politics like any other. Where my father grew up, the dominant language was not Spanish but Caló, which is generally (incorrectly, in my opinion) considered a degenerate form of Spanish. Later on he had to catch up a lot in order to be taken seriously in international business. He also learned Brasilian Portuguese, which started out as a regathering of various dialects of Lisbon Portuguese. It is a defacto language, and may become be widely recognized as such, given the political weight behind it.
jfarmer 17y ago
No linguist would ever call the way someone speaks a "mistake," in the same way that a purple swan isn't a mistake. It's something rare and worth studying!
_pius 17y ago
The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. This is the very epitome of attacking a strawman. The article didn't come close to arguing that "no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake." As a matter of fact, the author specifically and painstakingly drew a distinction between what he considers simply mistake-based variants of languages (which do exist) and new language dialects with different, but well-specified grammars (of which he considers AAVE to be one).
- pg 17y ago
  The author drew a distinction between making a grammatical mistakes, and a vernacular dialect. He didn't claim that there were some vernacular dialects that embodied mistakes and others that didn't. I can't imagine any linguist who would. What I'm saying is that all vernaculars have consistently observed (surely you don't literally mean well-specified) grammatical rules. Their speakers couldn't understand one another otherwise. So if your definition of mistake = inconsistency, then (by definition) you'll never find a vernacular that embodies mistakes.
  - grandalf 17y ago
    A linguist would argue that it's a mistake only if an adult speaker learned the language after the critical period and didn't manage to grasp all of the rules. If a child (or someone who grew up in the language environment) made the "mistake" then it's an example of language change in action... unless the child is so young that it's simply a language learning artifact such as "I goed to the store today, daddy" (which, incidentally, is logically consistent with other past-tense forms yet ungrammatical b/c of social norms)...
  - _pius 17y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. The author drew a distinction between making a grammatical mistakes, and a vernacular dialect. He didn't claim that there were some vernacular dialects that embodied mistakes and others that didn't. I can't imagine any linguist who would. Fair enough. When you said "vernacular variants" (as opposed to dialects) it sounded as if you were including all vernacular variants including simple grammatical mistakes, sporadic use of slang, etc. What I'm saying is that all vernaculars have consistently observed (surely you don't literally mean well-specified) grammatical rules. I agree that all vernacular dialects have consistent rules. And you're right, I did mean consistently observed, not well-specified.
grandalf 17y ago
pg: In linguistics a grammar is just a series of rules. "Proper English" is not a linguistic concept, it's a social concept. If you were raised in a household and exposed to proper English input, your native language is proper English. You have accomplished nothing other than learning the language you were exposed to. Similarly, if you are born into a household that speaks Spanish or AAVE or Dutch (and are fed and otherwise not abused too significantly), you will learn one of those languages and become a fluent speaker without any conscious effort. AAVE is no more "improper" Standard English than Spanish is improper Standard English. Of course, if you're taking a course in school on Standard English and you choose to turn in a paper written in AAVE (or Spanish), you are likely not to get an A.
- pg 17y ago
  Do you really believe I don't understand that human languages are just grammatical conventions their speakers observe? If you think you disagree with me in some way, could you point out a sentence I wrote that you believe is false, and explain why it is?
  - grandalf 17y ago
    Well, I think the burden of proof is on you to show why language mistakes matter at all. If I can understand what someone else said or wrote (or spelled!), then why do we need a central authority to determine what is correct vs incorrect? Isn't there a fairly significant incentive toward conformity for efficiency's sake? It's as if there were a call for some central authority to critique the names people are given (which, incidentally, change over time just as languages do). It is my opinion that someone named, say, Shanikwa had about as much control over her name as anyone else does over his/her native grammar, and those who judge someone on the basis of their name are just as much playing the social judgment card as those who judge a person's native grammar. Doing so is purely a social status play, and has no useful/pragmatic significance or objective superiority. The fact is, language changes over time like any other fashion. If you don't like a particular grammar or a particular fashion that is a matter of taste. I can look at someone's outfit and say "ooh, fashion mistake", but is there really any reason why I would find doing so useful? You can make the argument that using Standard English (and wearing a suit) are useful social conventions to adopt when going to a job interview, but I think the usefulness of either judgment ends there.

by pg 17y ago

stcredzero 17y ago

You can't have any threshold, or you get weird consequences in hypothetical cases, like all the speakers of a dialect dying off except one. So if you decide that no vernacular can embody mistakes, you're bound to conclude that nothing any individual does can be a mistake, so long as they do it consistently. But lots of disciplines involving living things have problems like this. You can't "define" species. A species is a historical happenstance, which can only be precisely defined in retrospect with minute information we usually never have access to. You can spend all day coming up with corner cases and boundary conditions where any such attempt breaks down. But that's like deciding if a particular boulder in Panama is a North American one or a South American one. Just because those terms break down in boundary cases and are not like mathematics doesn't mean those terms aren't useful. Things pertaining to human beings and culture are even more prone to this. In the case of African American vernacular, there are sizable populations with high degrees of consistency in their patterns of speech. Quite far away from boundary conditions. Another thing I've noted, since dating an African American woman and attending family gatherings with her, is that the manners and rules of social conduct of rural African Americans are more complex than I am accustomed to. When I am with her family, I have to think about how I'm going to excuse myself and navigate leaving a room. Otherwise, I never think about this. I reflected on this, and realized that it reminded me of watching Masterpiece Theater as a child. I'm probably witnessing throwbacks to French and English culture from centuries ago, still rippling though rural Louisiana. Homo Sapiens are complex -- period. Even many so-called "country bumpkins."

jacobolus 17y ago
> manners and rules of social conduct of rural African Americans are more complex than I am accustomed to Is that increased complexity, or merely lack of familiarity? I imagine someone coming to a large gathering of your family would also feel like there were new subtle rules to learn, etc. I know that I have to think more about myself when I'm stuck in an unfamiliar social setting than in one I've spent lots of time in.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Actual increased complexity. "Crossing in front of" someone is socially significant, where it usually isn't for me. Addressing people is absolutely required when leaving the room, not just a good idea. There are more manifestations of the difference between children and adults. There are more unspoken rules, not just different ones.
pg 17y ago
I don't disagree with anything that you say here, and yet you seem to be disagreeing with me, which is odd. You seem to think I'm naively making some argument that depends on the words breaking down at boundary conditions. Actually I'm not. I believe a language spoken by just two people (or even one) is just as real a language as one spoken by millions-- that the difference in the way they're treated is a matter of politics, not the intrinsic qualities of the language.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  I believe a language spoken by just two people (or even one) is just as real a language as one spoken by millions-- that the difference in the way they're treated is a matter of politics, not the intrinsic qualities of the language. I was also trying to provide support to the notion that, "the difference in the way they're treated is a matter of politics." Often, I'm replying to 3rd parties or countering common misconceptions in my "replies," which is probably trying to say too much in one post as well as leaving too much implicit. In other words, I am grinding an axe here, but it's not directed at you. A language spoken by exactly two would be very difficult to study. There are problems analogous to studying a species with only the last two individuals from which to draw data. I think there is some mechanism here that links the softer fields inextricably with politics. There is less academic "territory" to occupy, and so there is a handicap to the political power of academics who study that particular data, while at the same time, there's also often increased power that stems from scarcity. (Dead sea scrolls.) EDIT: All human endeavors are linked with politics. "Softer" fields tend to be more encumbered.

algorias 17y ago

"you're bound to conclude that nothing any individual does can be a mistake, so long as they do it consistently." This is exactly how languages evolve over time, actually. A group of individuals makes changes ("mistakes"), and is consistent in the usage of the new ("mistaken") forms over a given period of time. If you didn't accept that, you'd be forced to conclude that we're all just very bad speakers of our modern languages' predecessors.

req2 17y ago

This is simply a problem with definitions, though. Whether mistake or habit, or language, dialect, or idiolect, what matters is the part that comes after. People still study the Akkadian language, despite its lack of speakers.

a-priori 17y ago

What this argument doesn't account for is that there are universal rules that underlie all human languages -- even so-called "idiolects". When languages mutate, as they do constantly, they do so only within these rules. I'm speaking here of X-bar theory, bare phrase structure, and so on. In effect, we're hard-wired to process language, and so are constrained by the limits of that wiring. A mutation ("mistake") that violates these rules will not 'stick', because the resulting language would be unintelligible to humans.

aristus 17y ago

A standard joke about that: a dialect is an ideolect with a history and body of literature. A language is a dialect with an army and a navy. Language is an instrument of politics like any other. Where my father grew up, the dominant language was not Spanish but Caló, which is generally (incorrectly, in my opinion) considered a degenerate form of Spanish. Later on he had to catch up a lot in order to be taken seriously in international business. He also learned Brasilian Portuguese, which started out as a regathering of various dialects of Lisbon Portuguese. It is a defacto language, and may become be widely recognized as such, given the political weight behind it.

jfarmer 17y ago

No linguist would ever call the way someone speaks a "mistake," in the same way that a purple swan isn't a mistake. It's something rare and worth studying!

_pius 17y ago

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. This is the very epitome of attacking a strawman. The article didn't come close to arguing that "no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake." As a matter of fact, the author specifically and painstakingly drew a distinction between what he considers simply mistake-based variants of languages (which do exist) and new language dialects with different, but well-specified grammars (of which he considers AAVE to be one).

pg 17y ago
The author drew a distinction between making a grammatical mistakes, and a vernacular dialect. He didn't claim that there were some vernacular dialects that embodied mistakes and others that didn't. I can't imagine any linguist who would. What I'm saying is that all vernaculars have consistently observed (surely you don't literally mean well-specified) grammatical rules. Their speakers couldn't understand one another otherwise. So if your definition of mistake = inconsistency, then (by definition) you'll never find a vernacular that embodies mistakes.
- grandalf 17y ago
  A linguist would argue that it's a mistake only if an adult speaker learned the language after the critical period and didn't manage to grasp all of the rules. If a child (or someone who grew up in the language environment) made the "mistake" then it's an example of language change in action... unless the child is so young that it's simply a language learning artifact such as "I goed to the store today, daddy" (which, incidentally, is logically consistent with other past-tense forms yet ungrammatical b/c of social norms)...
- _pius 17y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. The author drew a distinction between making a grammatical mistakes, and a vernacular dialect. He didn't claim that there were some vernacular dialects that embodied mistakes and others that didn't. I can't imagine any linguist who would. Fair enough. When you said "vernacular variants" (as opposed to dialects) it sounded as if you were including all vernacular variants including simple grammatical mistakes, sporadic use of slang, etc. What I'm saying is that all vernaculars have consistently observed (surely you don't literally mean well-specified) grammatical rules. I agree that all vernacular dialects have consistent rules. And you're right, I did mean consistently observed, not well-specified.

grandalf 17y ago

pg: In linguistics a grammar is just a series of rules. "Proper English" is not a linguistic concept, it's a social concept. If you were raised in a household and exposed to proper English input, your native language is proper English. You have accomplished nothing other than learning the language you were exposed to. Similarly, if you are born into a household that speaks Spanish or AAVE or Dutch (and are fed and otherwise not abused too significantly), you will learn one of those languages and become a fluent speaker without any conscious effort. AAVE is no more "improper" Standard English than Spanish is improper Standard English. Of course, if you're taking a course in school on Standard English and you choose to turn in a paper written in AAVE (or Spanish), you are likely not to get an A.

pg 17y ago
Do you really believe I don't understand that human languages are just grammatical conventions their speakers observe? If you think you disagree with me in some way, could you point out a sentence I wrote that you believe is false, and explain why it is?
- grandalf 17y ago
  Well, I think the burden of proof is on you to show why language mistakes matter at all. If I can understand what someone else said or wrote (or spelled!), then why do we need a central authority to determine what is correct vs incorrect? Isn't there a fairly significant incentive toward conformity for efficiency's sake? It's as if there were a call for some central authority to critique the names people are given (which, incidentally, change over time just as languages do). It is my opinion that someone named, say, Shanikwa had about as much control over her name as anyone else does over his/her native grammar, and those who judge someone on the basis of their name are just as much playing the social judgment card as those who judge a person's native grammar. Doing so is purely a social status play, and has no useful/pragmatic significance or objective superiority. The fact is, language changes over time like any other fashion. If you don't like a particular grammar or a particular fashion that is a matter of taste. I can look at someone's outfit and say "ooh, fashion mistake", but is there really any reason why I would find doing so useful? You can make the argument that using Standard English (and wearing a suit) are useful social conventions to adopt when going to a job interview, but I think the usefulness of either judgment ends there.