Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot

[Woolard, Kathryn]

D'you suppose this could be partially derived for a (mis)reaading of
Bourdieu and like-minded theorists that we try to teach to our undergrads?

Kit W.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Schiffman <haroldfs at GMAIL.COM>
Reply-To: Harold Schiffman <haroldfs at GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:38:40 -0800
To: "LINGANTH at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
<LINGANTH at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Subject: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot

>Here's another article about the perception that grammar is
>a plot by the government to control our minds.
>
>Hal S.
>
>
>January 13, 2011
>
>Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot
>
>By CLYDE HABERMAN
>
>Even before the Tucson shootings, Jared L. Loughner acted weirdly and
>darkly in so many ways that singling out any one aspect may defy
>sense. Nonetheless, for bizarreness, his rants about grammar stand
>out.As Mr. Loughner has tried to explain it in Web postings, English
>grammar is not merely usage that enjoys common acceptance. Rather, it
>is nothing less than a government conspiracy to control people¹s
>minds. Perhaps more bizarre, even potentially troubling, is that he is
>not the only one out there clinging to this belief. Some grammarians
>say they hear it more often than you may think.
>
>³It is completely off the wall,² said Patricia T. O¹Conner, the author
>of several books on grammar, including ³Woe Is I.² ³But I¹m not
>actually that surprised,² said Ms. O¹Conner, who also writes a blog,
>grammarphobia.com, with her husband, Stewart Kellerman. ³I get mail
>once in a while from people who believe that it¹s wrong to try to
>reinforce good English because it¹s some kind of mind-control plot,
>and English teachers are at the bottom of this. For anyone to say that
>subject and verb should agree, for example, is an infringement of your
>freedoms, and you have a God-given right to speak and use whichever
>words you want, which of course you do.
>
>³But they see it as some sort of plot to standardize people¹s minds
>and make everyone robotically the same.² One person identified with
>this notion is a Milwaukee man named David Wynn Miller, who prefers to
>render his name as :David-Wynn: Miller and who says that people must
>free themselves of a government he deems tyrannical. But Mr. Miller
>has distanced himself from Mr. Loughner and rejected suggestions that
>his own online writings over the years may have inspired the rampage
>in Tucson.
>
>Of course, idiosyncratic grammar and punctuation, of themselves, are
>hardly automatic signs of derangement. Nor are they confined to one
>point or another along the political spectrum. Rappers have long gone
>their own way when it comes to spelling names and putting thoughts
>into words. And the idea that language can be used, and abused, to
>exert control is familiar. Orwell, anyone? (In fact, on his YouTube
>page, Mr. Loughner listed Orwell¹s ³Animal Farm² as one of his
>favorite books.)
>
>But the Loughners and Millers take many steps closer to the dark side
>by describing grammatical structure as proof of government wickedness.
>
>Ben Zimmer, the ³On Language² columnist for The New York Times
>Magazine, said he, too, had received letters talking of a ³grand
>conspiracy.² He got them, in particular, when he was editor for
>American dictionaries at Oxford University Press.
>
>³When people are confronted with linguistic authority of various
>kinds, whether it¹s dictionaries or grammar books, the more
>conspiratorially minded may use that as evidence of some grand scheme,
>or something where people are pulling the strings behind the scenes
>and using language to do that,² Mr. Zimmer said.
>
>Ms. O¹Conner said there is a flip side to the rejection of all
>grammatical structure. It is slavish adherence to old rules and
>intolerance for any perceived transgression.
>
>She gets an earful, she said, when she writes that there is nothing
>horrific about, say, splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with
>a preposition. For some people, those are heresies to always object
>to.
>
>But it¹s the more anarchic types whom Ms. O¹Conner finds worrisome,
>those who ³think we¹re all in cahoots ‹ government, business,
>education, the church ‹ and it¹s all one big conspiracy, and grammar
>is part of it.² E-mails that she gets boil down to, ³You¹re part of
>this elitist attempt to keep the masses down through language.²
>Somewhat saddened by all this is Margaret Edson, who teaches social
>studies at a middle school in Atlanta. In 1999, Ms. Edson won the
>Pulitzer Prize for Drama for her play ³Wit.² Punctuation, notably the
>centrality of the comma and the semicolon, is practically a character
>all its own.
>
>³If we weren¹t teaching grammar as a way to bring the voices of our
>students forward, for a redemptive purpose, then why teach, why live?²
>she said. ³We¹re trying to bring their voices forward, not suppress
>them.² ³If you don¹t have grammar, you don¹t have sense,² Ms. Edson
>said. ³You don¹t have one another. You can¹t say ŒI love you¹ without
>grammar.² As the Tucson nightmare shows, however, you can express hate
>without it.
>
>E-Mail: haberman at nytimes.com
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/nyregion/14nyc.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=gramma
>rians?&st=cse
>
>--
>=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>
> Harold F. Schiffman
>
>Professor Emeritus of
> Dravidian Linguistics and Culture
>Dept. of South Asia Studies
>University of Pennsylvania
>Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305
>
>Phone:  (215) 898-7475
>Fax:  (215) 573-2138
>
>Email:  haroldfs at gmail.com
>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>-