« writing clubs | Main | I'm so confused »
!?@?!poor@!#$ English
oh, no. When I posted about the construction probably may not be (which I ran into in The Wall Street Journal) I somehow misrepresented my concerns.
Let me clarify.
I didn't call this construction bad or poor English. I would never, ever do that. I am by training a linguist, and linguists take language as it exists. Spoken language (specifically excluding written language here) is a living, growing, mutating thing that can't be nailed down. It will change, no matter how many grammar books may be written or laws passed. You can codify written language, but spoken language? Nope. Cannot be done.
So I ran into a construction which surprised me, because I had never seen it before. That doesn't make the construction bad English.
There are hundreds and hundreds of varieties of English over space, and each of them is distinct from the next in a lot of different ways. To priviledge one variant above another is a social call, and has nothing to do with the viability of the language construction itself. Let me point out, if you're really interested in this topic, that the standard college text on issues of language standards, ideology and discrimination was written -- well, by me, back in the days when I was still a full time academic. You can probably find a library copy, if you're really keen to know more.
English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States
Routledge
ISBN: 0415114772
In summary: If it turns out that probably may not be is a new spoken language construction that's popping up (which seems to be the case), then so be it. My first reaction was surprise, not disapproval. Now I'm just curious about its genesis and the way it functions.
October 11, 2005 06:32 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/558
Comments
Sara,
I read your book EWAA and thought it very interesting that you say there is no bad grammar just grammar that you might not like or grammar that one may really hate because it tells us about the social station that a person comes from. I understand the idea that language used properly is where one person gets across what he is saying and the other person understands it.....my teeth are still on edge when I hear some certain things spoken. We think we are free of social conventions....but I fear my life just may be runnung by more of them than I could confess
Cynthia in Florida
Posted by: Cynthia at October 12, 2005 09:24 AM
Cynthia -- sure. Of course you have feelings and reactions, it would be silly to deny that. What I would hope (not for you in particular, but for everybody) is that when you find yourself reacting to how something is said (rather than what is being said) you'll consider the origins of your first reactions and whether or not they are getting in the way.
Posted by: sara at October 12, 2005 09:48 AM
The Wall Street Journal thinks of itself as having a finger on the pulse of society. It writes an awful lot of stories on new trends. The Journal may be wrong in its focus on the next Big Thing, but it tends to incorporate idioms in these stories and I that's the way I read the quoted language.
I find your blog entertaining and I wish you great luck in finding a comfortable place to write where you can bring your dogs!
Posted by: Barbara at October 12, 2005 02:23 PM
Sara, That was my point when I stated that it was "poor English".We can "get away" with saying things like that!
Posted by: Joyce at October 13, 2005 09:04 AM
I have noticed an increasing tendency to refer to people "that" like a certain thing, rather than people "who" like it.
To me, "that" is for objects, and "who" is for persons, so it seems to indicate that the speaker regards others as objects.
Overanalysis maybe?
Posted by: murgatroyd at October 13, 2005 01:32 PM