Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

Well, let's look at Canadian English, British English and American English. Across the 3 you have a mix of spellings and grammar rules. Which one is 'proper'?

Depends on the setting/context doesn't it? But surely within each setting/context there is something appropriate and proper.

[The Brain]

Seems like someone is forgetting that the point of communication is to communicate.  And that is facilitated by everyone following the same rules.  There are obviously hundreds of ways people can communicate, we call these ways languages, but it is always preferable for two people attempting to exchange ideas and understanding to communicate by same means.

That sounds kind of racist. I think.

[garbon]

To passively describe how language is used and only passively describe how language is used without making any judgments is just as foolish as to be overly pedantic about applying "proper" rules that have become outdated by use.

For some reason, people like the author of the above article insist on all-or-nothing absolutes: that you have to be either a backward looking pedant or accept that there is absolutely no such thing as teaching proper English. There is an expression for this: "to throw the baby out with the bathwater". 

The notion that we should just allow kids to speak any way they like without making any effort to teach them, because they are "natural linguists", is strongly implied in that article:

As children, we all have the instinct to acquire a set of rules and to apply them. Any toddler is already a grammatical genius. Without conscious effort, we combine words into sentences according to a particular structure, with subjects, objects, verbs, adjectives and so on. We know that a certain practice is a rule of grammar because it's how we see and hear people use the language.

That's how scholarly linguists work. Instead of having some rule book of what is "correct" usage, they examine the evidence of how native and fluent nonnative speakers do in fact use the language. Whatever is in general use in a language (not any use, but general use) is for that reason grammatically correct.

Good luck with that.

Clear communication is a skill like any other: it is acquired, can be taught, and is better with practice and criticism. The notion that every human is simply a natural "grammatical genius" and so does not require any instruction because "Without conscious effort, we combine words into sentences according to a particular structure, with subjects, objects, verbs, adjectives and so on. We know that a certain practice is a rule of grammar because it's how we see and hear people use the language" is, quite simply, absurd.

Yes because the author didn't note that it is possible to make mistakes nor did he note that learning the conventions of one's language is vital.

[garbon]

Well, let's look at Canadian English, British English and American English. Across the 3 you have a mix of spellings and grammar rules. Which one is 'proper'?

Depends on the setting/context doesn't it? But surely within each setting/context there is something appropriate and proper.

I don't know. Is my language suddenly improper because I'm an American and generally stick to American grammar unless facing down potentially embarrassing things like pants vs. trousers?

[garbon]

Seems like someone is forgetting that the point of communication is to communicate.  And that is facilitated by everyone following the same rules.  There are obviously hundreds of ways people can communicate, we call these ways languages, but it is always preferable for two people attempting to exchange ideas and understanding to communicate by same means.

Is it though? Does not ending a sentence on 'of' or using the word 'ain't' suddenly make it hard 'to exchange ideas and understanding'?

[Valmy]

I don't know. Is my language suddenly improper because I'm an American and generally stick to American grammar unless facing down potentially embarrassing things like pants vs. trousers?

Depends on the extent it makes communication difficult. I am sure British people have to tone it down a bit when they come over here as well.

[Valmy]

Seems like someone is forgetting that the point of communication is to communicate.  And that is facilitated by everyone following the same rules.  There are obviously hundreds of ways people can communicate, we call these ways languages, but it is always preferable for two people attempting to exchange ideas and understanding to communicate by same means.

Is it though? Does not ending a sentence on 'of' or using the word 'ain't' suddenly make it hard 'to exchange ideas and understanding'?

It is a kind of communication though. I don't think having formal  vs. informal language forms is some kind of atrocity. You are communicating something when you use either. If you use only very formal words and grammar structures you are communicating a certain formality and gravitas and so forth rather than the more intimate and familiar informal forms. There are times when it is proper and appropriate to use one of the other, just like you said

But this extends to all kinds of things, like how you dress. Wearing one of those Tuxedo T-Shirts to a formal occasion is communicating something.

[garbon]

I don't know. Is my language suddenly improper because I'm an American and generally stick to American grammar unless facing down potentially embarrassing things like pants vs. trousers?

Depends on the extent it makes communication difficult. I am sure British people have to tone it down a bit when they come over here as well.

Well I very much doubt that if a monolithic 'proper' English were to be found (I guess the standard version of each of those countries' English could be considered a monolithic block for each) that they point of said English would be to ease communication through standardization. If that were the case, you probably wouldn't want to have as many 'big words' as that's a hindrance to communication among the general populace. Certainly much more so than taking issues with someone saying 'can't' vs. 'cannot'.

[garbon]

Seems like someone is forgetting that the point of communication is to communicate.  And that is facilitated by everyone following the same rules.  There are obviously hundreds of ways people can communicate, we call these ways languages, but it is always preferable for two people attempting to exchange ideas and understanding to communicate by same means.

Is it though? Does not ending a sentence on 'of' or using the word 'ain't' suddenly make it hard 'to exchange ideas and understanding'?

It is a kind of communication though. I don't think having formal  vs. informal language forms is some kind of atrocity. You are communicating something when you use either. If you use only very formal words and grammar structures you are communicating a certain formality and gravitas and so forth rather than the more intimate and familiar informal forms. There are times when it is proper and appropriate to use one of the other, just like you said

But this extends to all kinds of things, like how you dress. Wearing one of those Tuxedo T-Shirts to a formal occasion is communicating something.

Yes, I've said from the start that there are certain settings where a sort tone/type of speech is preferred and deemed more appropriate. That doesn't mean that I'm agreeing with the notion of 'Proper English' as what's deemed proper is determined by setting/context/culture.  Of course, that's all the sort of thing that can be seen as oppressive vis-a-vis speaking white and speaking black.

[Valmy]

Yes, I've said from the start that there are certain settings where a sort tone/type of speech is preferred and deemed more appropriate. That doesn't mean that I'm agreeing with the notion of 'Proper English' as what's deemed proper is determined by setting/context/culture.  Of course, that's all the sort of thing that can be seen as oppressive vis-a-vis speaking white and speaking black.

Well of course any social expectation can be seen as oppressive or even racist depending on the cultural context. I mean you are expected to conform to something you might not like. But I don't see how society works without them.

[garbon]

Yes, I've said from the start that there are certain settings where a sort tone/type of speech is preferred and deemed more appropriate. That doesn't mean that I'm agreeing with the notion of 'Proper English' as what's deemed proper is determined by setting/context/culture.  Of course, that's all the sort of thing that can be seen as oppressive vis-a-vis speaking white and speaking black.

Well of course any social expectation can be seen as oppressive or even racist depending on the cultural context. I mean you are expected to conform to something you might not like. But I don't see how society works without them.

That's nice. I'm glad actual discrimination can be hand waved away with 'anything really can be'.

[DGuller]

Seems like someone is forgetting that the point of communication is to communicate.  And that is facilitated by everyone following the same rules.  There are obviously hundreds of ways people can communicate, we call these ways languages, but it is always preferable for two people attempting to exchange ideas and understanding to communicate by same means.

Is it though? Does not ending a sentence on 'of' or using the word 'ain't' suddenly make it hard 'to exchange ideas and understanding'?

Is misspelling one word per sentence critical?  Probably not, but it's something you want to try to avoid anyway.  Once you abandon the idea that there is a proper standard to adhere to, communication can get progressively noisier and require more and more energy to process.

[Valmy]

That's nice. I'm glad actual discrimination can be hand waved away with 'anything really can be'.

If your definition is merely the existence of culture and society is actual discrimination than you define everybody everywhere for all time was discriminatory and will be for all time. I don't think that is necessarily the case, but it is just not possible to create a culture that satisfies everybody.

[garbon]

Seems like someone is forgetting that the point of communication is to communicate.  And that is facilitated by everyone following the same rules.  There are obviously hundreds of ways people can communicate, we call these ways languages, but it is always preferable for two people attempting to exchange ideas and understanding to communicate by same means.

Is it though? Does not ending a sentence on 'of' or using the word 'ain't' suddenly make it hard 'to exchange ideas and understanding'?

Is misspelling one word per sentence critical?  Probably not, but it's something you want to try to avoid anyway.  Once you abandon the idea that there is a proper standard to adhere to, communication can get progressively noisier and require more and more energy to process.

Such a slippery slope.

[garbon]

That's nice. I'm glad actual discrimination can be hand waved away with 'anything really can be'.

If your definition is merely the existence of culture and society is actual discrimination than you define everybody everywhere for all time was discriminatory and will be for all time. I don't think that is necessarily the case, but it is just not possible to create a culture that satisfies everybody.

We might be able to have more productive discussions if you weren't out to demolish arguments that I didn't make.

Just so we are clear, I don't agree with the sentiment of the graphic that Marti posted. That's why I suggested a correction.