Hello, Riverkid,
At last I’ve been able to get down to our debate. First of all I must say I was happy to get several new words into my vocabulary : nudnik (wow, incredible!), maven, for screwball reasons, flout, shibboleths, rabble and a few more.
I read Pinker’s article and the impression it left is that he is a conceited demagogue, though he certainly makes some valid points. “Maven, shmaven” was a gem ! I suspect Pinker’s pitching into poor W. Safire has also a hidden political motive, they may belong to Democrats and Republicans respectively. OK, who am I to criticize a professor? Just a humble ESL.
Professor Pinker is a world renowned expert on language acquisition, Humble. He takes a strip off of a number of mavens because they deserve it. For far too long these dimbulbs have been maligning both the language and the users of language. Now, when their lies are exposed, they fall strangely silent.
Now, to your points.
1."Where being ungrammatical is confused with merely being informal, there is a danger that the student of English will not be taught how to speak in a normal informal way, but will sound stilted and unnatural, like an inexpert reader reading something out of a book."
If I say Where are my keys?, am I stilted and unnatural?
No, of course not, Humble. Not in every language situation and not specifically in this one. There are many levels to speech.
2.They made the assumption that all language had to be the same as that which we use for formal writing.
Who exactly? A false accusation.
"they" are prescriptivists, those people who concocteded the false 'rules' and those that perpetuate them.
3. That leaves them in the ludicrous position of trying to defend their "rules" when no one follows them.
What are those rules no one follows? An example?
I thought you said you read the article by Mr Pinker. He went over a number of them. I've addressed more in postings I've made here.
4.I've heard this argument about tests and such and it is a fallacious one. First, it presupposes that ESLs are not smart enough to recognize that there is informal and formal in language and that formal is required on many tests.
Talking about beginners (and the one who is confused by the juxtaposed are and a I guess is one), do you think it’s reasonable to teach them informal English at once? Let the skeleton form first, then grow some flesh on it, then some fat (that is, all kind of niceties like register). The beginners are not yet smart enough.
5
Of course, beinners are not exposed to every aspect of English at the outset. But these issues are raised time and again here on these type of language sites. They have to be dealt with. To perpetuate a lie is perhaps worse than starting one.
. Secondly, tests represent such a small portion of an ESLs English life.
Wrong. They are hugely important for at least half of all ESLs.
And you're offering this as a plausible excuse for continuing the lies. Why would anyone want to do that?
.Thirdly, why continue to allow these know-nothings to advance their highly specious 'rules'.[/FONT][/SIZE]
Who’s the authority pinning a lable on the educated elite?
8.
That's easy, Humble. Prescriptivists offer no proof for their sorry rules.
Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level.
A fallacy called hasty generalization.
9. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters.
The same fallacy.
10. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition.
Hypothesis contrary to the fact. Absurd. Most of them are logical. I find a good deal of similarity between grammar and algebra.
We're not talking about all the real rules of language, Humble. We're talking about the prescriptions that have never been actual rules. They were rules made up for highlly specious reasoning; simply because some people wanted the language to operate in certain ways.
Oh, I’m afraid I am not articulate enough for serious debates, I’ve had just a miserable amount of real language practice, next to none.
You've acquitted yourself admirably, Humble.
