[Ads-l] RES: Pseudo-prescriptivism in TV dialogue

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

In all of this, DD fails to appreciate that "correctness" is exquisitely context-specifc sociolinguistically. From the point of view of the Big Bang Theory's characters (all in their 20s or 30s), including Jim Parsons's character Sheldon, and probably for Parsons himself (who is now 46), and almost surely for the (mostly young) scriptwriters on the show, NomConjObj is not only acceptable, it is the (only) correct formal usage; they would take AccConjObj to be informal, unserious, low-class, and so to be avoided. The character Sheldon is *exactly* the sort of young person (with his prissy drive for correctness) who would use NomConjObj across the board.

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 5:46 AM, David Daniel <dad at COARSECOURSES.COM> wrote:
> 
> This was quite common on The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon loved to correct other
> folks' grammar, but then would turn around and say "between you and I,"
> "give it to Leonard and I," etc., and use "bring" for "take." I wrote to
> them several times about it over the years but, unsurprisingly, they never
> wrote back and never corrected it.

on 2/4/15 in my posting “Sunday NomConjObj”, on an interview in the NYT Sunday Review:

 > From a 2/24/14 posting:<

  >>I have gradually come to be conclusion that NomConjObjs should be seen as an alternative standard usage (largely in coexistence with the prescriptive standard of AccConjObj). The question is then who uses which version, in which contexts, for which purposes. The tentative answer to this question looks complex: I know from interviewing speakers informally that some think that NomConjObjs are formal and “serious” (this is not the same thing as saying that users of the variant are “trying to be sophisticated”, as [CBS News reporter Bill] Flanagan suggests; usage critics are often quick to attribute motives to speakers, rather than just reporting their beliefs), while others simply think that [NomConjObjs] are the way the language works.<<

 >For older speakers, NomConjObjs tend to be used in informal contexts, especially in speech ..., but sometimes in informal writing as well ... But for many younger speakers (like my Stanford students), NomConjObjs are the default.<

Then in my 4/30/19 posting: NomConjObj in the New Yorker
https://arnoldzwicky.org/2019/04/30/nomconjobj-in-the-new-yorker/
a report on what I believe to be the first non-quoted NomConjObj to escape the copyeditors at the magazine (after having appeared in the work of careful (but younger) writers in the New York Times and many other publications, for years):

 >It would then be totally unsurprising for [New Yorker writer Joshua Rothman, in his late 30s] to use a NomConjObj in his writing for the magazine. By now, the copyeditors will also be on the young side and would find nothing notable about the usage; in fact, it’s quite likely that they would balk at an *Acc*ConjObj (as my Stanford undergraduates already did 10-15 years ago), as sounding unserious, too informal for academic writing, even a vulgar error — no matter how much [New Yorker writer Louis Menand, "the magazine's dragon on English usage" (AZ), in his late 60s] might fume that only AccConjObjs are acceptable.<

...

So, for Sheldon on Big Bang Theory, an extravagant demon for correctness, *Acc*ConjObj would just be a flagrant mistake and would require correction.  He doesn't use it, and he doesn't correct NomConjObj, because for him that's RIGHT

arnold


 

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org