9.151, Disc: Penultimate Posting: Presciptivism
The LINGUIST List
linguist at linguistlist.org
Sat Jan 31 16:27:12 UTC 1998
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-151. Sat Jan 31 1998. ISSN: 1068-4875.
Subject: 9.151, Disc: Penultimate Posting: Presciptivism
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>
Review Editor: Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>
Associate Editor: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editors: Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>
Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>
Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/
Editor for this issue: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>
=================================Directory=================================
1)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 11:18:14 -0500
From: Mark Mandel <Mark at dragonsys.com>
Subject: disc: prescriptivism
-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 11:18:14 -0500
From: Mark Mandel <Mark at dragonsys.com>
Subject: disc: prescriptivism
Stirling Newberry takes sarcastic offense at Karl Teeter's expression
of the difficulty he encountered in reading SN's post. That post
included the following:
The reasons linguistics avers persdcriptivism, is that
prescription is the cujnction of the dat top day activities of
language itself,...
KT had remarked:
I wondered for a moment if I were back teaching freshman
English! This particular collocation may be the silliest I have yet
noted in this context, [...]
SN's reply is:
Well I suppose if typing is the holy of holies in the subject of
inquiry - then I fail. The sentence above should read:
The reason that Linuistic avers prescriptivisim is that this is the
function of the day to day activities of language itself.
In this long running conversation we really have a collision of two
very important principles. On the one hand clarity of writing, on
the ohter hand the need for clear observation.
Anyway - I look forward to Mr. Teeter's forth coming paper on
how good typing is vastly more important than good thinking for
the advancement of lingusitic science.
I don't want to become part of a flame war. But I must admit that my
initial reaction to SN's sentence in question was very much like KT's:
"What the hell is this?" I could not determine whether
1. SN's spelling and/or typing were simply as bad as they seemed.
2. SN was intentionally producing garbage, presumably with some
satirical intent.
or
3. SN's message was a victim of the kind of garbling that is all too
common a mishap in cyberspace.
... and, in cases 1 or 3 (and possibly 2), what the sentence was
supposed to be.
Communication always requires some give-and-take, some allowance for
misunderstanding and difference between the parties. This, I guess, is
what SN means here by "the need for clear observation". But clarity of
writing, down to the surface level* of typing one's words onto paper
or byte-stream, is necessary too, and (IMHO) SN needs to pay more
attention to his own obligations as sender.
Prescriptivism? Consider this an object lesson in the usefulness of
shared standards and the risks to communication, both linguistic
("What is SN saying?") and paralinguistic ("Is SN being satirical?"),
when a communicative event strays too far from the common ground.
* call the Metaphor Police! ;-)\
Mark A. Mandel : Senior Linguist : mark (at) dragonsys.com
Dragon Systems, Inc. : speech recognition : +1 617 965-5200
320 Nevada St., Newton, MA 02160, USA : http://www.dragonsys.com/
Personal home page: http://world.std.com/~mam/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-151
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list