![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
*points to the leftmost deleted scene*
"What is President Roslin's position on the income tax?"
...
"It's a legitimate question!"
"I don't believe the president has articulated a position on the income tax, but I'm sure she will once she finds the tax forms."
I mean, I can see why it was deleted, but... *giggles* Something about clueless journalists and Billy's First Press Conference is just amusing me right now.
"What is President Roslin's position on the income tax?"
...
"It's a legitimate question!"
"I don't believe the president has articulated a position on the income tax, but I'm sure she will once she finds the tax forms."
I mean, I can see why it was deleted, but... *giggles* Something about clueless journalists and Billy's First Press Conference is just amusing me right now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 01:39 am (UTC)what's wrong with prescriptive linguistics?
while of course there is something fundamentally descriptive about grammar and usage, having prescriptive standards makes sure we all know what we're talking about.
this especially in the finer points of grammar: the proper use of punctuation is the major example i can think of. is there no place for standardized convention?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 01:58 am (UTC)Honestly, I suspect the actual goal is to keep the status quo just as it is, so that only "our type" speaks the standard. If this is the case, the way English is taught in schools is just about brilliant. Tell kids that they speak "wrong", that their family speaks in an uneducated, illiterate fashion, and they'll rebel. Who wouldn't? Who likes hearing that their family is wrong, and that to succeed they have to give up their very language?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:32 am (UTC)#
It seems we are presented with a dilemma: either tell people whose speech does not conform to some standard that they are wrong, or don't tell them. Do the former, and they rebel, speaking as they please out of stubbornness or definance. Do the latter, and they speak as they please because no one urges them otherwise. Unless there's a way to correct someone without first telling them they're wrong, there seems to be no way out of this puzzle.
Accent, vocabulary, and syntax all play heavily into how well people communicate. There is a high premium placed on the ability to accurately and quickly transmit information verbally, so it only makes sense that these three aspects of language should be standardized. Nobody likes being told they're wrong, but people do like being correct.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:37 am (UTC)Obviously the very people who speak the prestigious dialect; that is, the people in power.
2. This isn't an either or. There's another choice: Tell people the truth. The way they speak is appropriate in some settings and not appropriate in others. The standard is appropriate in some settings - and not appropriate in others. And don't try that line that the standard is always appropriate. That's just not true, and I have the (mental) scars to prove it.
See, this isn't correcting people, because they. aren't. wrong. This is helping people.
There's also the OTHER alternative which is "get people to be more tolerant of different speech patterns", but that doesn't seem very likely. Humans are perverse. Tell them they can't be racist, or classist, and they'll find another way to do the same thing, and justify it with words like right and wrong.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:49 am (UTC)Obviously the very people who speak the prestigious dialect; that is, the people in power.
The problem I see with this is that there is no pattern that divides along the line of race, wealth, background, or ideology--at least that I can think of--that describes these people in power. Some of these people were born into this "ruling class" (e.g., Bush) while others worked their way into it (e.g., Barack Obama, Alberto Gonzales). This strongly suggests there is willingness to adhere to prescriptive standards, which, regardless of whether you arrive at them by a process of correcting deviations or just indicating their pertinence, to me indicates their value.
Indeed, that very fact, that the sort of speech generally practiced by those in power is close to prescriptive standards, appears to be a strong reason to take prescriptive linguistics seriously.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:59 am (UTC)The people in power all tend to dress alike as well. What does that mean, that there's one "right way" to dress, and the others are wrong?
The reason the people in power speak alike is because that style of speech is associated with the people in power, just like three-piece-business suits are. There's nothing inherently better about the speech, it's just that this style has been adopted by those in power.
If some revolution happened, and all the people in power were put out of power, and instead we were ruled by AAVE-speaking people, pretty soon the "standard" would be our new prestigious dialect, AAVE.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 03:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 03:05 am (UTC)Please explain to me how the idea that one form of a language is inherantly superior to another form of that language is useful.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 03:13 am (UTC)It's useful because it takes into account the fact that one language, in relation to another can:
- be easier to formulate complex sentences
- be easier to understand
- have greater semantic precision
etc.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 03:17 am (UTC)That's not true.
- be easier to understand
Any language/dialect is easier to understand when it's your native tongue. Other than that, it falls apart. I fail to see how "himself" is supposed to be easier to understand than "hisself".
- have greater semantic precision
That's not true.
Honestly, I'm not sure how you made it through intro linguistics without learning this....
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 11:23 am (UTC)This cannot be avoided by "forcing" everyone to agree to the same rules, because even the language of the people in power changes.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:28 pm (UTC)1. I didn't say the idea of a standard is wrong, I just said it isn't more correct than any other form of the language.
2. Yes, we need a way to communicate, this is why God invented lingua francas, but technically this need could be filled by using IALs such as Esperanto or Ido. At any rate, the idea that "we need a standard" doesn't mean that "the standard is correct".
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:50 am (UTC)well. good night then if I catch you before; if not, good morning.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 01:59 am (UTC)Couldn't you have put this on the post where I talk about it?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:38 am (UTC)As for that line, I warn you, don't take it too seriously. Oh, I do mean it, definitely, I think prescriptivism is stupid, but I don't actually *mean* it. It's right up there with "I'm the grand high supreme and mighty empress of the known universe, whose wisdom and mercy knows no bounds".
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:43 am (UTC)> It's right up there with "I'm the grand high supreme and mighty empress of the
> known universe, whose wisdom and mercy knows no bounds".
You mean you're not?
[ jaw drops ]
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:45 am (UTC)Sheesh, I need to sleep.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:46 am (UTC)Good Night, Sweet Princess.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 01:39 am (UTC)what's wrong with prescriptive linguistics?
while of course there is something fundamentally descriptive about grammar and usage, having prescriptive standards makes sure we all know what we're talking about.
this especially in the finer points of grammar: the proper use of punctuation is the major example i can think of. is there no place for standardized convention?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 01:58 am (UTC)Honestly, I suspect the actual goal is to keep the status quo just as it is, so that only "our type" speaks the standard. If this is the case, the way English is taught in schools is just about brilliant. Tell kids that they speak "wrong", that their family speaks in an uneducated, illiterate fashion, and they'll rebel. Who wouldn't? Who likes hearing that their family is wrong, and that to succeed they have to give up their very language?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:32 am (UTC)#
It seems we are presented with a dilemma: either tell people whose speech does not conform to some standard that they are wrong, or don't tell them. Do the former, and they rebel, speaking as they please out of stubbornness or definance. Do the latter, and they speak as they please because no one urges them otherwise. Unless there's a way to correct someone without first telling them they're wrong, there seems to be no way out of this puzzle.
Accent, vocabulary, and syntax all play heavily into how well people communicate. There is a high premium placed on the ability to accurately and quickly transmit information verbally, so it only makes sense that these three aspects of language should be standardized. Nobody likes being told they're wrong, but people do like being correct.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:37 am (UTC)Obviously the very people who speak the prestigious dialect; that is, the people in power.
2. This isn't an either or. There's another choice: Tell people the truth. The way they speak is appropriate in some settings and not appropriate in others. The standard is appropriate in some settings - and not appropriate in others. And don't try that line that the standard is always appropriate. That's just not true, and I have the (mental) scars to prove it.
See, this isn't correcting people, because they. aren't. wrong. This is helping people.
There's also the OTHER alternative which is "get people to be more tolerant of different speech patterns", but that doesn't seem very likely. Humans are perverse. Tell them they can't be racist, or classist, and they'll find another way to do the same thing, and justify it with words like right and wrong.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:49 am (UTC)Obviously the very people who speak the prestigious dialect; that is, the people in power.
The problem I see with this is that there is no pattern that divides along the line of race, wealth, background, or ideology--at least that I can think of--that describes these people in power. Some of these people were born into this "ruling class" (e.g., Bush) while others worked their way into it (e.g., Barack Obama, Alberto Gonzales). This strongly suggests there is willingness to adhere to prescriptive standards, which, regardless of whether you arrive at them by a process of correcting deviations or just indicating their pertinence, to me indicates their value.
Indeed, that very fact, that the sort of speech generally practiced by those in power is close to prescriptive standards, appears to be a strong reason to take prescriptive linguistics seriously.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:59 am (UTC)The people in power all tend to dress alike as well. What does that mean, that there's one "right way" to dress, and the others are wrong?
The reason the people in power speak alike is because that style of speech is associated with the people in power, just like three-piece-business suits are. There's nothing inherently better about the speech, it's just that this style has been adopted by those in power.
If some revolution happened, and all the people in power were put out of power, and instead we were ruled by AAVE-speaking people, pretty soon the "standard" would be our new prestigious dialect, AAVE.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 03:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 03:05 am (UTC)Please explain to me how the idea that one form of a language is inherantly superior to another form of that language is useful.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 03:13 am (UTC)It's useful because it takes into account the fact that one language, in relation to another can:
- be easier to formulate complex sentences
- be easier to understand
- have greater semantic precision
etc.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 03:17 am (UTC)That's not true.
- be easier to understand
Any language/dialect is easier to understand when it's your native tongue. Other than that, it falls apart. I fail to see how "himself" is supposed to be easier to understand than "hisself".
- have greater semantic precision
That's not true.
Honestly, I'm not sure how you made it through intro linguistics without learning this....
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 11:23 am (UTC)This cannot be avoided by "forcing" everyone to agree to the same rules, because even the language of the people in power changes.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:28 pm (UTC)1. I didn't say the idea of a standard is wrong, I just said it isn't more correct than any other form of the language.
2. Yes, we need a way to communicate, this is why God invented lingua francas, but technically this need could be filled by using IALs such as Esperanto or Ido. At any rate, the idea that "we need a standard" doesn't mean that "the standard is correct".
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:50 am (UTC)well. good night then if I catch you before; if not, good morning.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 01:59 am (UTC)Couldn't you have put this on the post where I talk about it?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:38 am (UTC)As for that line, I warn you, don't take it too seriously. Oh, I do mean it, definitely, I think prescriptivism is stupid, but I don't actually *mean* it. It's right up there with "I'm the grand high supreme and mighty empress of the known universe, whose wisdom and mercy knows no bounds".
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:43 am (UTC)> It's right up there with "I'm the grand high supreme and mighty empress of the
> known universe, whose wisdom and mercy knows no bounds".
You mean you're not?
[ jaw drops ]
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:45 am (UTC)Sheesh, I need to sleep.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:46 am (UTC)Good Night, Sweet Princess.