Re: describing the minority as literate is a circular argument?

[Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>]

Quoting David Neeley <dbneeley -at- oddpost -dot- com>:

> Please note, though, that I agree with those who eschew personal
> attacks and I am only addressing what I believe to be some misconceptions as
> expressed in your arguments. 

Understood.

   
> However, let me also say that I have greatly enjoyed your writing--including
> the columns in Linux Journal. Judging by your writing on this list and by
> these articles, I would say you are well educated regarding grammar. I would
> also say you are (from these samples) a very competent communicator...but one
> whose "stylistic voice" I find not particularly distinctive. (I freely grant
> you likely have many other works in which this is not the case.) 

Hmm... is this a compliment or an insult? ;>

On the whole, I'll take it as a compliment, because your criticism implies that
I am doing what I intend. I don't try to inject too much personality into
technical articles. Part of the reason is that editors inevitably remove it, but
another part is that I don't think that technical articles are the place for it.
 Most of the time, I wince when writers do that.

 
> Sorry as I am that I am not familiar with the French Academy and its impact
> upon French, I am somewhat familiar with its Spanish equivalent, the Academia
> Real. One result of their work over many decades is that there is, in fact, a
> general agreement about what constitutes "good Spanish." This general
> agreement seems to hold quite well not only in Spain but throughout the
> Spanish-speaking world. 

But does the Academia Real have any influence on how people speak? The French
Academy hasn't influenced people to stop using "franglais" - English words, or
literally translated idioms from English. Nor do people in Quebec generally
believe that joual, their version of French, is undesirable because it is so far
from "proper" French. Perhaps you can tell me for sure, but my guess is that
things are no different in the Spanish-speaking world. 

> In addition, I was struck by your phrase "...the natural ebb and flow of
> language." It is an accurate one, if you consider that to "ebb and flow"
> there is both a forward and a backward motion. Grammatically, this is
> certainly true...and by your "natural understanding" you seem to make a
> natural connection that not all linguistic change is desirable. 

While I understand how you might make this inference, my choice of cliches
wasn't meant to imply it. I chose it to suggest a regular cycle of change. What
I think is important to emphasize when discussing prescriptive grammar is not
whether change is desirable or undesirable, but simply that it is inevitable.

At any rate, many changes seem gauche at first, then become gradually accepted.
For example, George Orwell objected to the use of "individual" as a noun. Yet I
doubt that many prescriptive grammarians today would share his objection. That's
part of why I describe prescriptive grammar as a series of rearguard actions.
What seems unacceptable at first later seems perfectly acceptable.


> This, I believe, is merely sophistry. From a linguistic standpoint, the
> "elite" are far more than some mythical group of wealthy individuals (pardon
> me if I am reading you wrongly!). Instead, it is also composed of writers and
> editors, teachers, and many others who appreciate language and seek to
> maintain its beauty and precision. 

"Elite" does not necessarily imply wealth - although, in this case, it might,
since the proper form of a language is generally considered one spoken by the
upper or upper middle classes. But, in this case, the elite is mostly defined by
education.

However, I would add that the linguistic elite also includes a large number of
people whom I would classify as "highbrows." They insist on the rules less out
of a love of beauty or precision than because they are the rules. They also tend
to use their knowledge of their received rules as a sort of ad hominem attack.

Also, I would add the obvious point that beauty and precision (to which I would
also add effectiveness) are not to be found only in the language used and
defended by the elite.  Yet, when such things are found outside the elite, the
elite is often reluctant to admit its existence.

> Without the "proper language" folks, these changes
> would be much more rapid than they already are--and great mischief to any
> sort of general consensus as to meaning would result far more often than is
> presently the case. 

My view is that change happens and is sifted by a kind of linguistic natural
selection, regardless of whether a proper language is defined. Prescriptive
grammar is only a few centuries old, and these things sorted themselves out
quite well before that.

I also can't help remarking that prescriptive grammar was not a concept in
Elizabethean England, and the language did change quickly - and was greatly
enriched as a result.

   
> Here, I believe your particular bias against those whom you perceive as being
> "the elite" again shows up. 

Identifying a group and questioning its claims does not make me biased. You may
be focusing too closely on the word "elite." In sociology, "elite" simply means
a group with some kind of power.

> difference between being educated and being schooled. From no standpoint, I
> believe, could it possibly be said that Shakespeare was "indifferently
> educated." In fact, if you are familiar with his work, he seemed remarkably
> well informed about the world outside his own vicinity.

Ben Jonson famously said that Shakespeare had "small Latin and less Greek." Nor
did he go to university. While not ignorant, he was not especially well-educated
by the standards of his time - at least, so far as we can tell.

> There was a very seminal book published in 1968 by Ivan Illich called
> "Deschooling Society." That book pointed out very clearly that we have
> attached too much significance to being schooled as compared to being
> educated. 

I think I would agree with the book. But my point is that school is where people
generally learn the standards of the elite. The more schooling you have, the
mroe you tend to accept the standards and want to defend it.

   
> Bruce, I beg your pardon, but you seem again to have a sort of "anti-grammar"
> bias. So far as I know, there is no one who suggests seriously that style is
> any less important than grammar. The only one arguing to the contrary seems
> to be you. 

My observation is that people tend to treat grammar as more important than style.
   
> I do not know why you seem to protest so vociferously that this might be the
> case. Any mail list that attracts writers will have many members who care
> very much about language. It is often easier and more immediately satisfying
> to assert points of grammar than it is to speak in the more general terms
> necessary to meaningfully comment on matters of style. 

I protest because I think that focusing on technique would be more useful.

I agree that it is easier to speak about grammar, but that adds to my assertion
that priorities are misplaced. 

But thanks for the comments. And thanks for those who have read this far without
hitting the Delete key.

-- 
Bruce Byfield 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l 

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.