Sunday, September 21, 2008
Putting down Pinker
David Mulroy takes up for all of the staunch grammarians out there in his essay, "The Scandal of Prespritivism." Beginning with some of the background of grammar, Mulroy cites William Caxton's view of the alterations in speech in the 1400's along with the birth of the first dictionaries and grammar books to enforce the rules that were impossible to be dished out merely by schools. The rest of the article revolves around dicounting the assertions that grammar was not all that important, which were made by Pinker. Mulroy points out that Pinker, along with Hook, doesn't use specific sources in backing up his statements and that he uses "anonymous examlples" in order to put down English grammar. He goes on to say that while Pinker mentions split infinitives being used during the 18th century, that they were not mentioned until 1864 and that the assertion, "That we can communicate with our instictive abilities is undeniable; that we can do so 'with exquisite precision' on the basis of instinct alone is doubtful" (85). Mulroy finishes up with saying that he supports dialects, but that it is impossible to fully express oneself without knowledge of standard English and that while he respects Pinker, he would rather have someone else teach his children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
So what do you think about it? After reading all these theories, do you find yourself leaning one way or another?
Hey Kate... ever use a thesaurus when writing a paper? Why...?
I'm just going to throw it out there...I wouldn't want Mulroy to teach my children.
I wonder if people think Pinker is clear and precise in his arguments. Because if he wasn't, Mulory may have a point. If Pinker doesn't believe we need standard English to communicate "with exquisite precision" he probably doesnt practice SE. If he doesn't practice it, and doesn't clearly express his ideas, Mulroy's argument would be...right. Darn it.
I find it hard to believe that people could not completely communicate their ideas without Standard English. What about when you talk to someone who speaks a different language than you? It's still possible to communicate, difficult but possible. That might be a bad example, but I think Mulroy is a little too hardcore.
I don't think I would want to teach his kids. He'd be too much of a pain in the ass. Agree of disagree?
I wouldn't want him to teach my kids, nor would I want to teach his kids. I like Pinker's take on things,but at the same time when it comes down to it Mulroy is right; like Kasey said. Honestly I think that it is good to be well informed when it comes to grammatical and non-grammatical English. There are educated people that have a difficult time communicating with non-educated individuals because of thier dialect. Going with Laurie's idea, those that are informed in multiple areas of communication would be more able to communicate with them than those that are only able to speak "correct" English.
This is a off/on subject, but the local station had a garage sale of sorts on last night, with a splendid host that pronounced doesn't donent along with many other grand pronunciations. I laughed until I didn't think I could laugh any more, and I think that the world is a better place thanks to people like him.
That is all.
So, you can some up an article nicely. How do you see the importance of prescript vs. descript? Is Mulroy right? Does Pinker have a strong position? Do you like Fruity Pebbles? (Bam-Bam)
Very good summary about Mulroy's reponse to Pinker. But, how do you feel? Are you more of a descriptivist or a prescriptivist?
And I agree with Kasey; I don't want Mulroy or someone like him teaching my children. I think I'm turning into a hippie descriptivist the further we go into the semester.
So here's my question: you haven't really had any grammar background right? So how is it that you can turn in a paper that makes sense and entails good writing? I would say somehow, we learn that there are rules without ever necessarily being taught them.
Let's be careful about how we refer to "grammar." Pinker is not against grammar. He is an extremely successful writer who employs the grammar of SWE with great fluidity. Pinker is against those who, in his view, foolishly and unthinkingly advocate prescriptivist rules based on some arbitrary notion that they are "correct." He would dispute the whole notion that there is a "correct" English and an "incorrect" English. That is not to say that he believes SWE has no rules or that there is no value in observing those rules in certain situations (as when you are writing a book for a general audience). It's the silly rules he is against. And the unfounded arrogance of those who seek to impose them on others.
Mulroy believes that Pinker does express his views "with exquisite precision." He thinks Pinker can do this because he has a command of SWE. Therefore, Mulroy thinks it is wrong for Pinker to piss on traditional grammar instruction, which can, presumably, help others attain the same command of SWE that Pinker has.
So is Pinker only against traditional grammar because it has been imposed on him? So maybe if people like Mulroy had suggested the "silly rules" instead of commanding he use them, Pinker would have less of an issue?
Honestly, I don't know where I even stand within the haze of Prescriptivism and Descriptivism. I have no idea. If Mulroy would be a little less grammar nazi, prescriptivism might seem a little more alluring.
Michaela, what do you make of a prescriptivist like David Foster Wallace? Does he make prescriptivist more alluring?
I have no idea how Pinker learned how to use SWE with "exquisite precision." Maybe he was taught by the kind of schoolmarm admired by Mulroy, maybe he wasn't.
I don't think he think students should not be taught the conventions of Standard Written English. I think he believes that it is sometimes useful to know and observe many of those conventions.
Post a Comment