Avoid The Wrath Of The Grammar Police, Part III
Written: Sep 16 '00
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Wonderful Introduction To Language Acquisition And Language Change. Challenges Assumptions Made By The Grammar Police.
Cons: British Cultural References Are Used When Reinforcing Points. U.S. Audiences May Find This Less Helpful.
|
|
|
| ATOM's Full Review: English Language for Beginners Books |
English Language for Beginners? People gave me strange looks when they saw me reading this book. The privilege of my Whiteness brought many to context me in as a Native English Speaker, which I am. It's the only language I know. Raised eyebrows passed me while a few friends added guffawed queries, wondering why I was reading this English Language for Beginners when I have been speaking English for almost three decades.
Well, I was reading this book because I am a beginner to examining how one acquires language, how one uses language, and how language evolves. Michelle Lowe and Ben Graham have put together an entertaining graphic documentary book on just these topics. Perhaps if this book had been required reading in my high school English classes, I'd have paid more attention. But as I reflect back on those years, I don't think much would have brought my attention away from the football game that weekend or the girl I had a crush on that week. But now I'm more interested in language than sports, so now I'm paying attention. That is, until an email from the woman I'm interested in pops up.
Lowe and Graham begin . . . Beginners by exploring the theories around the origins of language, the history of English, and basic linguistics. This provides a context for later chapters on language and it's association with power, for the conquests of the Vikings, who brought their language (Old Norse), and William the Conquerer, who brought a rural French dialect, all influenced the evolution of the English we're spewing forth today.
The chapters on child acquisition of language explore the different stages children go through when discovering their native tongue. It is truly amazing how quickly children pick up words, grammar, and context encouraging pure wonder that it happens at all. The arguments psycholinguists make considering the existence of a critical period wherein children are most capable of acquiring language might further one's hopelessness around ever learning a second language late in life. If only we could regenerate later in life the burst of knowledge of vocabulary, grammar and semantics that children experience at such a young age. It's still possible to learn another language, just so much more difficult.
The "Sex and Power" sections address the biases in Standard English Dialect that privilege particular groups. Particularly focusing on gender bias, these chapters address assumptions made about "woman's" speech that are presumed lesser based on circular reasoning, ('women are lesser beings so the speech they use is inferior; this speech they use is inferior so women must be lesser beings'). Lately, we've waved this off as simply PC talk. More often than not, such quick dismissals merely mean we wish not to debate the issue. Usually, if I address questionably sexist, heterosexist, racist, or whatever -ist language in others or myself, I'm being scolded as being PC because I have chosen to challenge the PC talk of that group, where it is "politically-correct" to use arguably sexist, heterosexist, racist, or whatever -ist words, phrases, or humor. This can be "policed" as much on either side of the issue. I would prefer to have an open discussion in regards to this topic rather than brush off talk as "PC" or knee-jerkly respond that what was said was offensive. What we need are ways to open the dialogue, not tactics that stifle the needed discussion.
In the final chapter, the authors use information discussed in the previous chapters to show how language is continually changing. We often judge this as sloth or signs of our immoral culture. But this is just how language works. To see language as static rules to which we should adhere is mere folly, and can be detrimental. One of the child acquisition studies discussed showed that children at the one-word stage whose parents consistently corrected the child's word choice and pronunciation actually advanced more SLOWLY than parents who were "generally accepting" of the fact that children need to play with language to better acquire it. Since vocabulary (much quicker) and grammar (much slower) naturally changes, prescriptivists (those who tell us HOW we should and should not be speaking) may actually be limiting are growth by holding onto old arbitrary rules that evolving English may no longer use.
Being that this series is published in England, the authors use Standard British English's (SBE)evolution as an example. Lowe and Graham argue that SBE initially meant the RP ("received pronunciation") accent of those such as the cast of "Absolutely Fabulous." Lately, these authors argue that the Estuary dialect used in shows like "East Enders" appears to be taking over in influence. Estuary has certain pronunciation and grammar similarities with Cockney, a dialect similar to America's Black English in the status it holds. Many use this as an example of the degradation of SBE, just as in America we denigrate more common use of Black English. But is the fact that it is rarer for Americans to speak like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Bette Davis really a sign of devolution? I would beg to differ. I would simply see it as change. Estuary British English commonly drops the -ly ending from adverbs like "slowly", such as "Don't walk too slow." Why would this be improper? If we are to argue so, than why aren't we being lambasted for using "slowly" when before that the common usage was "slow-like"? Our grammatical rules are arbitrarily applied. Certain contexts call for certain ways of talking. There are certain circumstances where SBE would better serve you. But that doesn't make it "better" overall.
Placing English, and any language for that matter, within the context of how it's likely acquired and how it naturally changes, we can see how this applies in our own lives. The most obvious is those of us who have children and assist them in their learning of our language(s). Particularly poignant to me is the part this plays in starting a new job. I recently began working at a computer software company that works within a financial context. Both these worlds, computer and financial, are new to me. This job has a ten week training period and while learning the software I had to learn how to speak Computerese and Financialese. Initially, I used terms improperly and some people would criticize what they saw as incorrect usage without even addressing the issue I was talking about and others would hear the context of what I was saying, addressing whether or not the base of what I was saying was correct or not, rather than seeing computer/financial vocab/grammar as the key. I understand the importance of using terms in Standard Computerese/Financialese, but I found myself seeking out help from and learning from those who used the latter method of hearing and addressing the context of what I was saying rather than those who nitpicked and criticized what they saw as poor vocabulary and grammar.
Of particular interest for us here on the Internet is how the DSLing and IM-ing of WWW is affecting our communication. Some linguists argue that the written word has had a dampening effect on language evolution since writing a language down is a more 'conscious' endeavor. We feel more obligated to adhere to the grammatical rules of ones languages standard while writing. Thus, language changes at a slower rate. However, the need to keep pace in emails and instant messages requires us to be creative with our spellings and bring written grammar more in line with casual speech. This is not "bad" per se. What it means is perhaps my children will speak with their fingertips in a way more syntonic with how they speak with their lips. I find this fascinating while those who have a tizzy over using "Woe is me" instead of "Woe is I" might call it horrifying.
But just like with spoken language, email language is context specific. The emails to my boss are different from those to my colleagues, which are different from the emails to my better friends, which are different from the emails to my girlfriend.
Language acquisition does not stop with childhood. Language evolves with us. We will not all speak the same. Out contexts of gender, race, class, culture, whatever, influence how we use language. If I take a word foreign to English, like "kim chi", and de-italicize it, I have brought kim chi into the fold of my English. I no longer see kim chi as other, but as one with my world. If I were to say 'That restaurant is bringin' the Marina to the Mission,' and you didn't live near San Francisco, you probably wouldn't have a clue about what I'm saying. (I'm talking about gentrification.) Playfully, I've communicated an idea to my fellow San Franciscans that bonds our San Franciscanality. At the same time, I've aligned myself with particular politics, including some fellow San Franciscans while excluding others.
Language is not so simple. English Language For Beginners has taken a confounding topic and laid out the basics for looking at language within it's context. And maybe their emphasis on . . . Beginners is that we should all approach language as beginners. Being that language inherently evolves into new forms, to come at language as if already knowledgeable sets up prescriptivist mistakes that arrogantly charge that use of new vocabulary or grammar is wrong when it is not. In doing so, we'll only end up looking as silly as those who lambasted the public for dropping slow-like slowly from their English.
Consistently educating as it entertains, I will always keep returning to the Writers and Readers series that publishes these books for the beginner's mind they encourage.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
ATOM
|
|
Member: Adam H.
Location: San Francisco, CA
Reviews written: 44
Trusted by: 105 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.