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

[innerbrat]

Because "red dog" is a type of dog, and contains a description it's easy to visualise. (I visualise a red setter). there's implications to the word "red" that cover more than colour.
A big red dog is a big variety of the type "red dog".

"Big dog" doesn't have the same status as a "type". It merely implies a large size.

If someone said "red big bird", I at least would visualise a red version of the character Big Bird, because that is what I have been culturally conditionedto assoicate the phrase "big bird" (with or without capitals).

--

"At least that's what I think," said Pooh.
"But I don't suppose I'm right," he said.

[conuly]

Except that if they said "red big bird" with that meaning, they wouldn't use the same intonation. They'd go a rehhhhd BIGbird (exaggerated greatly to make the point) instead of red big bird. Big bird here would be one lexical unit, like black bird or greenhouse. You know the difference between "a big green house" (a house that is painted green) and "a big greenhouse" (a building made of glass for plants) because they're said differently.

[innerbrat]

Hmm. Good point, I guess. OK, you win...

[conuly]

*tosses confetti*

Sorry, I just love to expound on my knowledge. *hugs* Forgive?

[innerbrat]

Forgive you for being right?
You don't need forgiveness for that. :D

*hugs anyway*