A quick definition of "standard" language, and some other stuff.

[conuly]

Here it is. The standard dialect is the one spoken by the people in power. They're not in power because they speak the standard dialect, this is important, rather it's that this dialect became standard because it's the one spoken by the people in power, and everybody *without* power strives to emulate it, because they want to be able to become one of the people in power. Of course, the people in power don't really want that, so language changes on all sides.

And that's really about it.

Grammar, it should be noted, is not something typically developing children have to learn in school. The typically developing child generally has mastered his or her native grammar by the age of six. In fact, most people can't begin to describe the rules of their own grammar. For example, you probably couldn't tell me what the rules are governing the order of adjectives, but you know instinctively (if you're a native English speaker) that big red dog is correct, while red big dog isn't. That's grammar. Or, even though you make thousands of unique yes/no questions in your life, you probably can't, off the top of your head, tell me the rules which you use when making a yes/no question. More grammar.

Some people have tried writing down the grammars of various languages, with a good amount of success. And a comprehensive grammar of the English language will indeed explain the rules which govern the use of double negatives in English, or the invariant use of the verb "to be" (think AAVE/ebonics), or the use of any of a dozen non-prestigious forms. Of course, the problem *here* is deciding which dialects you're looking at, because there are many many English dialects. However, you can rest assured that there is *some* book, *some*where that explains how to use a double negative in English. This book, no doubt, doesn't make value statements of right or wrong, so it's a bit of a moot point.

And there was your short linguistics lesson of the day. Tomorrow I'll find a link to the interactive IPA, that'll be fun.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot. Typically developing doesn't mean "normally intelligent". Some quite intelligent people are not typically developing in this respect, some people who are *not* normally intelligent *are* typically developing when it comes to language.

Comments

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

I agree, and saw the arguement on mock_the_stupid. However, the people in power (one in particular) is not exactly... A landmark of "standard english."
We are taught a few dialects of spanish, Central American, Castillian, and Latin American.
However, they conpletely ignored a whole verb tense because it wasn't used in Central Amerca up until this year. *wft look here*
Using double negatives is a confusing way to speak, as "I don't have no oranges," could mean I don't have any oranges, or I have oranges. Education, once again, is the key.

[conuly]

Do people really interpret double negatives that way? Have you ever heard "I don't have no oranges" and actually believed that the person in question meant to say that they had oranges? Do Spanish, or French, or Russian speakers ever get confused?

However, the people in power (one in particular) is not exactly... A landmark of "standard english."

You mean Bush? But, see, there's the thing. Until relatively recently he didn't talk like that. He started talking like that later. Now, we're going to ignore his actual mistakes, like "is our children learning". I don't believe *any* American dialect has that construction. As for the rest of it (al-qaider, nukyuler), it *seems* to be an attempt to "tone down" his language, so he seems like a "down-home" kind of guy, somebody you could invite over to a barbecue, the exact opposite of "a person in power". It's all very deliberate, and conscious, playing off the negative stereotypes associated with Standard English speakers.

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

This is true, however, even if he chooses to speak this way, we should not praise him for his awesome speaking and language ability.
"Fool me once... Shame on............... you... Fool me twice....er.... uhhh... shameee."
You get the picture. And as a spanish speaker, I've never been confused because it is part of the language.
I don't see it: No, no lo veo: No, no I see it
Saying, "No lo veo," though most likely understood, would not be as grammatically correct.
In a way, you can apply this to English, as I understand what one is trying to say with "I don't have no oranges," though it is not grammatically correct. Uly, if you can find a single book on English grammar that says that double negatives are an accepted way of expressing oneself, I would be impressed.
(I'm still impressed if you don't. It's fun reading what informed people have to say on a given subject.)
(And about Bush? He's not your "average down home kinda guy." He was born into one of the richest families in the USA. I despise his whole dumb act.)

[conuly]

Uly, if you can find a single book on English grammar that says that double negatives are an accepted way of expressing oneself, I would be impressed.

Oh, it's simple enough. Just move past the grammar guides into the linguistics section. People have analyzed ahem: the invariant use of the verb "be" in AAVE, they've definitely got to have analyzed double negatives in English.

Of course, the people writing accurate grammar books are also not very likely to make value judgments on what they find, so "correct" and "incorrect" won't be mentioned. But at least you'll have accurate information, which is never to be spurned.

As for Bush, yeah, he's still an idiot. But for his most dramatic mistakes, I don't think that's a sign of stupidity. I maintain my statement that it's more likely to be a sign of an actual learning disability. It's definitely an act, though - he grew up and was educated in the north-east.