Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[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.

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.

Racial slurs are never proper.

[Valmy]

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.

True I am primarily arguing against the sentiment of the graphic not against you. My apologies.

[garbon]

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.

True I am primarily arguing against the sentiment of the graphic not against you. My apologies.

[Malthus]

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without making any judgments is just as foolish as to be overly pedantic about applying "proper" rules that have become outdated by use.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.

The author made some worthy points. Too bad he also made some damn silly ones to go along with them. 

[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.

The author made some worthy points. Too bad he also made some damn silly ones to go along with them. 

Nobody is perfect.

[grumbler]

I'd argue that there is such a thing as "formal language," which is expected to conform to some standards (not the same ones everywhere and changing over time) and "informal language" which, inevitably, is less transferable between groups and more widely variable.  While I reject the idea that there is "proper English" and "improper English," I do think that a vital language skill is the one that tells you when to use formal English and when to use informal  English.

It took one of our Spanish exchange students, for example, some time to adjust to the fact that "fuck" was not, in American formal English, an okay word to use.  In his English classes in Spain, it was a mild expletive and he was not chastised for using it.

[Martinus]

garbon is a perfect example how bonkers the "progressive" left can be. Fortunately, that phenomenon is slowly being put to rest, with more and more people being turned away by its idiocy.

[garbon]

garbon is a perfect example how bonkers the "progressive" left can be. Fortunately, that phenomenon is slowly being put to rest, with more and more people being turned away by its idiocy.

You are going to put me up as the poster boy for a group that I'm not a part of? Interesting.

Well it would be if you weren't such a consistent dumbass.

[Capetan Mihali]

I thought it was the "regressive" left?

[Martinus]

The term regressive left is ironic/sarcastic, progressive left is what they call themselves, here "progressive" was put in scare quotes to denote the name is a misnomer.

[Tamas]

I thought it was the "regressive" left?

Please keep up with Milo's Instagram account, it is impossible to have a conversation with you if you are hours behind the latest definitions.

[garbon]

The term regressive left is ironic/sarcastic, progressive left is what they call themselves, here "progressive" was put in scare quotes to denote the name is a misnomer.

Perhaps you should focus a little more on trying to communicate clearly.

[Maladict]

Please keep up with Milo's Instagram account.

I caved and looked up his wiki page. What a self indulgent waste of atoms.

[PDH]

I'd argue that there is such a thing as "formal language," which is expected to conform to some standards (not the same ones everywhere and changing over time) and "informal language" which, inevitably, is less transferable between groups and more widely variable.  While I reject the idea that there is "proper English" and "improper English," I do think that a vital language skill is the one that tells you when to use formal English and when to use informal  English.

Exactly.

There is code shifting for various groups, and knowing when to use them is vital.  The models of linguistics clearly show that a successful person in one code-group may do poorly in another, simply because the models of speech are different.  This is basic stuff in linguistics, hardly controversial.

The problem comes when those who don't understand language and linguistics attempt to classify the various ranges of language by "proper" and such.

Language is living, mutable, and based on society - of course there are ranges according to situation.

[Malthus]

I'd argue that there is such a thing as "formal language," which is expected to conform to some standards (not the same ones everywhere and changing over time) and "informal language" which, inevitably, is less transferable between groups and more widely variable.  While I reject the idea that there is "proper English" and "improper English," I do think that a vital language skill is the one that tells you when to use formal English and when to use informal  English.

Exactly.

There is code shifting for various groups, and knowing when to use them is vital.  The models of linguistics clearly show that a successful person in one code-group may do poorly in another, simply because the models of speech are different.  This is basic stuff in linguistics, hardly controversial.

The problem comes when those who don't understand language and linguistics attempt to classify the various ranges of language by "proper" and such.

Language is living, mutable, and based on society - of course there are ranges according to situation.

I don't think anyone seriously disputes that different modes of speech are suitable for different occasions. What you guys call "formal English" is what others would term "proper English". There is no expectation that it will be used under all circumstances (in fact, it would be a source of considerable mockery if it was so used  ). However, it is important that someone know *how* to use it, and lack of that ability spells doom to attempts to communicate convincingly in formal settings.

The problem in the article cited by Garbon is similar to what happens when people take any concept from linguistics or anthropology too far and too literally. Abandoning any attempt to "prescriptively" teach the rules of "proper English" or "formal English" would do students a significant disservice, and would be a bad idea if it could be universally imposed - because the use of various "informal" speech patterns alone, without access to a universally understood (if variable over time and place) "proper English", would make mutual intelligibility between in-groups more difficult. It therefore makes perfect sense to privilege one set of rules for the purposes of education, call them "proper English" or "formal English" if you like.