Prescriptive v. Descriptive Grammar
This blog is for my group; after talking to you guys I started to wonder if maybe you would find my linguistic argument interesting. I’d love to get feedback from you on whether it’s just my knees that go weak for language……
First, defining terms…
Grammar- The collective rules which govern a language.
Descriptive Grammar-The rules which make language understandable.
Prescriptive Grammar-The rules which govern the “correct”/”proper” way to use language.
Most simply, Descriptive Grammar is what makes sense in our head. For example, we have a hard time understanding:
Go will me the to market you for ?
This is because our language has a particular order, (Subject-Verb-Object), and this sentence defies that order.
However, we have no problem understanding: “Yo, G, who dat be mackin’ on ma shorty?”, or “Ain’t it lovely?”, or “Can I go to the bathroom?”
These are all different aspects of prescriptive grammar, but notice they are all still mutually intelligible, (all English speakers can understand). An easy way to think about it is that prescriptive grammar is all that stickler stuff that may make you roll your eyes.
Where’s my gripe? Well, I’m a pretty big stickler for differentiating between the two types of grammar. Remember in school when you’d ask, “Can I go to the bathroom?”, and in return got something like “Well, you can, but may you?” The big know-it-all teacher is trying to impress upon you that you don’t know how to ask for what you want. Well, guess what? The big fat know-it-all teachers of the world are the ones who were messing it up, not you!
Paul Grice, (a personal superhero for me), found that communication is often broken down for various reasons, and came up with some rules to alleviate these problems. Basically, he’s a big proponent of the “Cooperative Principle”, which basically means that when you communicate with someone else, you’ve both entered into an agreement; that you are both willing to further communication rather than block it.
Example-
Shauna- Hello Steve, did you bring the book for me?
Steve- Why do you think they make Mountain Dew that color?
Steve completely ignored what I was saying, and therefore was not cooperating, leaving me stressed and irritated.
Paul Grice, the aforementioned genius, came up with 4 rules, (Maxims), to describe these breaks with cooperation…
Quantity-To be as informative as possible without taking an unnecessary time to say it. (Not too much or too little, but just right)
Quality- Don’t lie or talk about shit you don’t actually know
Relevance- Don’t be like Steve
Manner- Don’t say stuff that’s confusing or ambiguous, say stuff that makes sense in a way that makes sense.
Violating/Flouting a Maxim-
Imagine we’re driving through Newmarket..
You- Shauna, can I use your phone?
Me-I don’t get reception here.
Technically, I in no way responded to what you actually asked me. However, you and I were both on the same page, and even without going through the entire communication process of ‘Well, I don’t think it’s worth it since obviously you could use my phone if you wanted, but since we’re driving through Newmarket and there are like no cell phone towers around here, I don’t get service and you won’t be able to make a call until we get to an area where there is a tower nearby”. This is called “flouting” a maxim.
Same Conversation-
You-Shauna, can I use your phone?
Me- Gosh, I wonder how much a jetpack might cost….
Obvious violation.
In the above example, your big fat know-it-all teacher blamed you for violating the Relevance Maxim, (S/he’s trying to impress upon you that it’s not his/her job to know whether you can properly relieve yourself.) In actuality, though, it is s/he who is violating this maxim, because s/he understands exactly what you’re really asking, and is purposely refusing to give you the appropriate and relevant answer.
As talked about above, descriptive grammar is all about what language speakers understand, not what their teachers might prefer they say. Maybe I shouldn’t say “ain’t”, and maybe I should eliminate the occasional double negative from my speech, but even if I don’t, you’ll know with perfect clarity what I’m saying.
Was that interesting? Don’t lie, I have no problem with you telling me how lame this stuff is and how I probably shouldn’t get so excited about it… Resident WordNerd here…..
Replacing Good TV With Good People
Did anyone last night’s episode of House MD? Maybe I should take back everything I said about banning TV because that crap shouldn’t have been allowed to produced and shown. For those of you who haven’t seen, House MD is a comedic drama centering around a miserable, brooding genius doctor who has crazy medical epiphanies while popping vicodin and insulting the world. Doesn’t that sound lovely? This formula was working for the show; we laughed at his misanthropy, we cheered on the team as they worked tirelessly to save some poor person’s life, we applauded as House inevitably figured out the illness, and we even learned a little about science and medicine.
Last night was the two hour season premier. When we left off, House decided to check himself into rehab. This episode was the continuation, opening with a few scenes depicting House’s detox. The next two hours are an inspirational blur; through all the soul-searching and self-stock-taking I was left yawning and waiting for the fun medical mystery. How was I supposed to know that House MD was no longer this great show about cool dianostic medicine, but now heartfelt dramatic journey from drug abuse to salvation. Ick!!! Where was the rectal bleeding? Where was the initial diagnosis of Lupus? Most importantly, where was the interesting story line?
If the bastardization of one of my favorite shows wasn’t enough, I found out that many people were very moved by this crap. Don’t get me wrong, I think drug abuse is bad and that people should face their addictions, but I don’t want to watch them do it! I watch TV because it’s entertainment, and because it’s interesting, not because I need to be inspired. All you hippy dippy feelgood people are ruining a favorite pastime with your equally hippy dippy feelgood drivel. Go to church, or be a big brother, or something, but don’t come into my dorm room labeled as TV!
The good news is that quite a few viewers were completely turned off. In fact, I hear many people are pretty much done with the show entirely. My mother’s been walking around ranting that FOX had either give the Vicodin back to House or they should send it to her if they expect her to keep watching. I’m inclined to agree, because the only thing that could get me through a whole season of that crap would have to be a potent mental painkiller.
PLEASE, I implore you, take out the personal betterment, because it makes for shit TV…
Book Banning
NYC – Learning to Tolerate Intolerance – NYTimes.com
Interesting article discussing whether or not it’s OK to ban what we don’t want to see. The argument centered around a CVS in New York carrying some “inspirational” books which touted the message that being gay is sinful and whatnot. After some complaints to the local paper, the CVS discontinued the sales of those books.
Firstly, I want to make the point that was so eloquently made in the comments section, that this issue in particular does not violate Free Speech in any way, as it’s under the auspices of an establishment which is in no way government run, owned or operated. Similarly, I’m not required to keep a copy of every book ever written in my home on the off chance that one book may refute the teachings of another book. Ergo, this example isn’t technically “CENSORSHIP”.
Anyway, on to the debate.
First of all, I heard a saying once that was something along the lines of “Where they burn books, assume that people aren’t far behind.” I’ve always held on to this belief that even the most putrid, vile, heinous, and ludicrous drivel spoken or written by the most moronic idiotic bigots should still be protected. This position, however, sits pretty firmly in the pit of my stomach, because I have no proof that free speech, and therefore even hate speech, doesn’t cause people to get burned, (euphemistically or otherwise). In fact, hate insights hate, and therefore not banning it furthers intolerance. I guess it seems like the only difference is which side you’d prefer to be intolerant.
Well, I guess I’d prefer that those same moronic bigots be the intolerant ones, and not the government. Hell, we’ve already established that they’re idiots, right? Anyway, in a land where the government is the bigoted asshole, you’re likely to get something between Nazi Germany and 1984, which is way scarier than the KKK, who are among our greatest troubles. Obviously the KKK and all the other racist SOB’s out there are not the desired solution, but at least we have protection against them, if not their way of thinking.
Another issue is the lack of agreement on the specifications as to what should be banned and what shouldn’t. Here’s a list of at least some of the books banned in the US right now. Banned Books Please feel free to flip through all the dirtiest works of heresy that shouldn’t be shown to children, or anyone.
I would provide a shortened list of the most surprising entries, yet the more I look through this list, the more shocked I am. When even the dictionary is considered offensive material, the answer is to just forget banning altogether, lest the anti-dictionary people be voted into any position with even minimal power.
Food/Health
I just finished reading the first section of In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, by Michael Pollan, and I’m a little disappointed. Ok, ok, I’m disappointed because, as a “foodie”, I was sorta hoping it’d be about food, and not so much about health. Ok, so far it looks like I’m a pretty appropriate audience, since I care deeply about food. Pollan is talking about how we spend so much time trying to dissect and understand the chemical makeup of food, (with the purpose of cutting out the bad and OD’ing on the good), that we’re actually making ourselves impossibly unhealthy. Ok, I can relate to that- which US President said that ketchup is a vegetable, btw? And I’m sure we’ve all heard that chocolate is a vegetable, t00. However, bananas and avocados are the worst foods you can eat, since bananas are full of carbs and sugar, and avocados are full of fat.
I like Pollan’s argument. I understand it, and I do agree with his hypothesis. May I only add that I think it is correct, but not complete. He poses that Americans are unhealthy due to their attempts to be more healthy, coupled with the food industry’s bastardization of food for the sake of profit. He doesn’t address many other issues, like extreme laziness, extreme busy-ness, or phobia of exercise. I’m glad he doesn’t address those issues, because his argument isn’t “Why Americans are Fat”, but why the food situation in this country has broken down and done much more harm than good.
Pollan writes matter-of-factly, which I appreciate. I like his dry, casual tone. He seems like he’s methodically holding my hand through his analysis, rather than simply ranting. For example, on pg. 52, he brings up cereal and potato chips, both of which are obviously processed, and to some degree unhealthy, and explains how both are endorsed by prominent organizations; the American Heart Association for cereal, and the FDA for potato chips. So potato chips are heathy now, awesome! Well, no, they’re still not, it’s just that by eating potato chips you’re consuming one type of fat instead of another which is reputed to be less healthy. It’s kind of like the new DD Smart menu offered by Dunkin Donuts to help its consumers make more healthy choices. Iced Tea is about the only acceptable item on there, due to it being almost entirely water. Should you crave anything other than Iced tea, your options range from a Latte Lite, (milk and Splenda rather than cream and sugar), to an Original Coolatta, (who else is super excited that Coolattas are finally good for you?!?).
I find it fascinating Pollan’s assertion that the physical act of scientific investigation can be blamed. ”The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of the food, and the food out of the context of the lifestyle”-Marion Nestle. In order to come to a scientific conclusion, one needs to isolate the specific factors which cause A to do B, and the only realistic way to do that in this context is to break down food into its many chemicals, and figure out what each brings to the table. Obviously this does “take the nutrient out of the context of food”, which of course can then be interpreted as, “there is no context”, or rather, the nutrients don’t need to be combined as they are naturally in order to produce the desired effect. Obviously that leads to, “ok, we’ll just inject the crap out of everyday foods and eventually we’ll all be healthy superheroes.”
Despite my initial disappointment, I find Pollan to be making some very good points. I don’t know if he’ll ever succeed in convincing me I need to make a change in my life, but I’m willing to give him the chance.
Censoring Kid’s TV
I was talking to a friend about how our parents raised us, and I was shocked to hear that her mom didn’t let her watch Rugrats, (a Nickelodeon TV show from the 90′s centering around talking babies. Frankly, I was shocked. Why on earth is Rugrats a bad show for little kids? Well, she told me, her mom didn’t approve of Angelica, the older cousin who enjoyed bullying the babies as a recurring theme. Honestly, as someone who was frequently bullied <in real life> while growing up, I thought the real thing was much more hurtful. Also, I often identified with the babies because I knew what it was like in their shoes. I was always mad at Angelica, and I really appreciated whenever I saw her do the right thing. In all, I found her to be a dynamic and somewhat realistic character, and either way, I was watching the show purely for entertainment, so I didn’t analyze it too much to begin with.
I guess I’m just really frustrated with this idea that little kids need to be shielded from the world. It seems I’m on the losing end of this battle, because now Nickelodeon boasts shows like Blue’s Clues and Dora the Explorer, where the audience is asked questions, a more interactive, educational television experience. Whether it really is more educational is subjective, but I certainly feel it’s lacking the morals and real life scenarios shown on the programs I watched. It doesn’t seem like anything ever really goes wrong on Blue’s Clues, in fact all conflict is basically cut from kid’s television. Is all conflict taboo? Is this what we want to teach our kids?
Looking back on my own childhood, I can’t remember my exposure ever being limited. By the end of elementary school, I was reading Stephen King, and by that time I was already an avid crime show junkie. In fact, the summer of 5th grade, my mom decided to show me every movie she could think of that was important in some way, whether it was educational, or a classic, or simply a damn good movie. This was possibly one of the best gifts she ever gave me, the gift of context. Having been the product of an uncensored childhood, I’m the result that so many parents are deathly afraid of.
Allow me to list the benefits this open tradition awarded me. Firstly, I have always had the relationship with my parents that is most sought after. Our family was always a forum for open discussion and dialogue, and I never hesitated to ask my parents about anything. For the most part, my mom and I pretty much bypassed those ugly teenage years most mothers and daughters seem to have. Not only that, but I have a lot of random knowledge of a million different things, something I find the vast majority of people my age seriously lack. That’s not so scary, is it?
Censoring kid’s exposure to the world does nothing but censor the kids from the real world. There’s nothing wrong with allowing our offspring to see the best and worst parts of life, as long as the parent is ready to have open dialogue and discussion. My parents choices in raising me in this environment were the best service they ever could have done me. I urge everyone who is thinking of bringing kids into this world to consider this message.
Profile: Memorable Argument
Disclaimer: As with everyone, upon writing this piece I never considered that it might be sent out into the hustle bustle of the WWW… Had I considered that option, I’d probably have written something a bit more mundane.
As someone who’s always been an avid debater/arguer, I often find myself standing on the opposing side of many people I know. At a young age I started to get very involved in a particular argument which may prove to be among the most alienating amongst the masses; I became extremely, almost radically Pro-Israel. In this case, loving a country means being able to answer loads of questions, and never the easy questions like “What do they eat there”. No, I get the “Why did Israeli Soldiers bomb that poor village and kill 12 people?”. Countless times this and similar questions have been posed to me, and my answer, as truthfully as I can be, typically starts with, “Well, actually it wasn’t a poor village, but a bomb factory housing hundreds of terrorists, and actually the twelve people killed were all Israeli soldiers”, which leads me to explain the insane media bias, and typically at this point I’m asked to recount 5,000 years of history. I believe what I believe because I know it to be true, but most of the world is inundated with mistruths and blatant lies.
This might possibly be the most difficult type of argument. The majority of facts and figures I arm myself with are often completely different from the facts and figures brought by the other side. How can two sides argue about a bigger issue when they can’t even agree on the simplest details? Also, the media, the UN, the Red Cross, various international corporations, and even famous jews such as Noam Chompksy, Norman Finkelstein, and Adam Shapiro, are all rabidly anti-Israel, so my protests that “they all have it wrong” often get lost in the mix. To debate this topic is beyond tiring, enraging, and tends to end unresolved. In fact, I look to any other debate as a cathartic and simple release.
