A Sense of Doubt blog post #2627 - Does Grammar Matter - Prescriptivists vs. Descriptivists

A Sense of Doubt blog post #2627 - Does Grammar Matter - Prescriptivists vs. Descriptivists

Amazingly, I had set this post for today, and so since it's the day for a share in my rotation in the BLOG VACATION II, then rightly so, time to share.

ALSO, this subject seems fitting since in a few days I interview for a full time position at LCC, my school, and I want to be at the top of my game. I consider this interview and job application the most important of my life thus far, and if I do not get it, I hope they open two more positions in the near future (as they are expected to do), and I manage to get one of those.

Also, I need to fix in my mind the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism as it's a concept that seems to escape my consciousness even after I review it. I hope this entry cements it in my consciousness for possible use.

Thank you for tuning in.

Andrea S. Calude // TED-ED

DOES GRAMMAR MATTER?

You're telling a friend an amazing story, and you just get to the best part when suddenly he interrupts, "The alien and I," not "Me and the alien." 

Most of us would probably be annoyed, but aside from the rude interruption, does your friend have a point? Was your sentence actually grammatically incorrect? And if he still understood it, why does it even matter? 

From the point of view of linguistics, grammar is a set of patterns for how words are put together to form phrases or clauses, whether spoken or in writing. 

Different languages have different patterns. In English, the subject normally comes first, followed by the verb, and then the object, while in Japanese and many other languages, the order is subject, object, verb. 

Some scholars have tried to identify patterns common to all languages, but apart from some basic features, like having nouns or verbs, few of these so-called linguistic universals have been found. 

And while any language needs consistent patterns to function, the study of these patterns opens up an ongoing debate between two positions known as prescriptivism and descriptivism. 

Grossly simplified, prescriptivists think a given language should follow consistent rules, while descriptivists see variation and adaptation as a natural and necessary part of language. 

For much of history, the vast majority of language was spoken. But as people became more interconnected and writing gained importance, written language was standardized to allow broader communication and ensure that people in different parts of a realm could understand each other. 

In many languages, this standard form came to be considered the only proper one, despite being derived from just one of many spoken varieties, usually that of the people in power. 

Language purists worked to establish and propagate this standard by detailing a set of rules that reflected the established grammar of their times. And rules for written grammar were applied to spoken language, as well. 

Speech patterns that deviated from the written rules were considered corruptions, or signs of low social status, and many people who had grown up speaking in these ways were forced to adopt the standardized form. 

More recently, however, linguists have understood that speech is a separate phenomenon from writing with its own regularities and patterns. 

Most of us learn to speak at such an early age that we don't even remember it. We form our spoken repertoire through unconscious habits, not memorized rules. And because speech also uses mood and intonation for meaning, its structure is often more flexible, adapting to the needs of speakers and listeners. 

This could mean avoiding complex clauses that are hard to parse in real time, making changes to avoid awkward pronounciation, or removing sounds to make speech faster. The linguistic approach that tries to understand and map such differences without dictating correct ones is known as descriptivism. 

Rather than deciding how language should be used, it describes how people actually use it, and tracks the innovations they come up with in the process. 

But while the debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism continues, the two are not mutually exclusive. At its best, prescriptivism is useful for informing people about the most common established patterns at a given point in time. 

This is important, not only for formal contexts, but it also makes communication easier between non-native speakers from different backgrounds. 

Descriptivism, on the other hand, gives us insight into how our minds work and the instinctive ways in which we structure our view of the world. Ultimately, grammar is best thought of as a set of linguistic habits that are constantly being negotiated and reinvented by the entire group of language users. 

Like language itself, it's a wonderful and complex fabric woven through the contributions of speakers and listeners, writers and readers, prescriptivists and descriptivists, from both near and far. 

https://bridgingtheunbridgeable.com/2012/10/05/creativity-andor-prescriptivism/

Creativity and/or Prescriptivism

Posted on October 5, 2012 by Viktorija Kostadinova

In a cult sketch on language, Stephen Fry compares the inexhaustible creative potential of language to that of music. The structure of language comprises a limited set of parts, just as a piano keyboard has a limited set of keys. However, they are both capable of producing an infinite number of combinations, each representing, as Fry puts it so vividly, “a unique child delivered of a unique mother”. And yet, he continues, we end up saying the same things over and over again. Could prescriptivism have something to do with that?

source: http://fuckyeahstephenfry.tumblr.com

The genius of Fry is that he manages to touch upon a very serious subject and make a very valid point about it while being hilarious at the same time. What he is actually referring to is how we have tried to stifle linguistic creativity with rules regarding just about any part of language usage, starting from simple grammatical rules, to complex rules referring to collocational patterns, style, appropriateness, the logic of a construction, and so forth.

As a non-native speaker of English, I have always felt that English is one of the rare languages in the world that has that great creative potential which allows a speaker to express exactly what they feel even if they are using an unusual combination of words. I always felt that, for instance, you can unleash your linguistic creativity and combine any verb or adjective with any preposition as long as it makes sense and expresses what you are trying to say more accurately, even though usage guides advise otherwise. It turns out, I have been living in delusion. Native speakers of English tend to have really specific ideas about which combinations are acceptable and which are not; these ideas do not differ greatly from what one would encounter in a prescriptive usage guide. Allan Metcalf, professor of English, author, blogger, AND a native English speaker, was recently the subject of scathing criticism regarding the non-standard use of ‘centered around’, instead of ‘centered on’, in one of his blog entries. He was accused of being careless about language rules, which is especially unacceptable for someone careful about language.

You might wonder how someone like him would react to accusations of using wrong/bad English. Explaining the etymology of the term and citing a dictionary entry is a very good option and the standard way of proving the point, which Metcalf did. However, he went one step further and created a prescriptivist contest! People are expected to come up with their own prescriptive rule, explain and exemplify it. Pullum succinctly expresses his views on this by calling it ‘fake prescriptive poppycock’, which I agree with. Nevertheless, after a few minutes of browsing through the newly invented rules, I came across some very interesting – and I have to admit, impressive – pieces of linguistic prescription. It struck me to what extent native speakers are aware of patterns of usage and how rule-conscious they are.

I am not sure whether that was the author’s goal in creating the contest, but I felt that one purpose of it was to make people aware of the absurdity and redundancy of prescriptive rules. By this, I do not mean that rules are bad in general; they make learning a second language easier and offer language users a sense of security about linguistic correctness. Some areas of language, however, should remain beyond the realm of rules. Language users should always be able to have some room left for unbridled linguistic improvisation.

How about you? Have you ever felt that rules restrain your linguistic freedom?

Blog Vacation Two 2022 - Vacation II Post 63

I took a "Blog Vacation" in 2021 from August 31st to October 14th. I did not stop posting daily; I just put the blog in a low power rotation and mostly kept it off social media. Like that vacation, for this second blog vacation now in 2022, I am alternating between reprints, shares with little to no commentary, and THAT ONE THING, which is an image from the folder with a few thoughts scribbled along with it. I am alternating these three modes as long as the vacation lasts (not sure how long), pre-publishing the posts, and not always pushing them to social media.

Here's the collected Blog Vacation I from 2021:

Saturday, October 16, 2021

A Sense of Doubt blog post #2433 - BLOG VACATION 2021 COLLECTED

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 2204.28 - 10:10

- Days ago = 2491 days ago

- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I plan to continue Hey Mom posts at least twice per week but will continue to post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.

A Sense of Doubt blog post #2579 - A Rubric for Students' Negative RateMyProfessors Reviews

A Sense of Doubt blog post #2579 - A Rubric for Students' Negative RateMyProfessors Reviews


Just a straight-up share today.

All I will say is that I NEVER look at any of these rate the prof sites.

I am too much of a delicate flower to see whatever nasty bullshit is on there.

It would not be healthy for my psyche.


https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2022/01/14/humorous-advice-students-negative-reviews-professors-opinion

A Rubric for Students’ Negative RateMyProfessors Reviews

As a teacher, Susan Muaddi Darraj feels compelled, tongue in cheek, to give those who are considering writing such a review some advice.

By 

Susan Muaddi Darraj

 

January 14, 2022

 Nobody in academe will admit to checking RateMyProfessors, but we all do, secretly, at night, on our smartphones.

I’ve read my reviews, and I can quote some of the lines verbatim, the way I used to memorize poetry in grade school. My personal favorite is a flippant comment by one student: “Does she even like teaching?” One student wrote that I am a terrific professor because I don’t care when people walk in late to my class, which astounds me to have been misread like this. One review stated bluntly, “Buyer beware. Her moods seem to swing.” (I kinda love that one.) Another student wrote that I “go out of my way” to help students, which makes me feel—honestly—fantastic. And I’m going to do it now.

But here’s the deal: negative reviews frustrate me, not because they are attacks on my teaching or that they hurt my feelings. My real problem is that they’re just not written well. As a teacher I feel compelled—even at this point, postsemester—to “go out of my way” and to give those students who are considering writing a negative review some advice.

So, to my students, here’s a rubric (since you’re always asking for one).

GRADING RUBRIC for “Your Negative RateMyProfessors Review”

Your review will be assessed according to the following standards.

The writer has a clear purpose (worth 10 points).

The RateMyProfessors website tells you straight up, “The fate of future students lies in your hands.” You have been to the battlefield and returned alive, and it’s your job to persuade the rest of the troops to march on or retreat. All your comments should focus on this goal. In a negative review, you must ensure that no student would willingly enroll in this professor’s class. Stick to that purpose—forget it not.

You only have 350 characters to use in your review, so include straightforward comments right at the beginning, such as DON’T TAKE THIS PROFESSOR! (The caps will convey authority.) Or “If you’re in this class, drop it now! Don’t wait—drop it!” The sense of urgency can be persuasive.

The writer successfully conceals his or her identity (worth 10 points).

Why write a negative review that gives away your identity? What if you have to take that professor’s class again, especially considering that you didn’t do so well the first time? (No, your D won’t transfer to the state university, so guess what? You’re back in my class.) Keep your identity secret. Think carefully about the way you speak or write: Are there certain phrases you repeat? “Her empathy is lacking.” Don’t you remember that you wrote that in your paper on whaling, that the “empathy of the whale hunters is lacking”? You don’t remember? I do.

In this vein, don’t mention anything exceptional that happened with that professor. “Prof is totally unfair—accused me of plagiarism on my Virginia Woolf paper. Me!” It’s not my fault that I still think “borrowing text” from Sparknotes.com is plagiarism: don’t forget that I’m old. But don’t you see how this line gives you away? Because I didn’t catch anyone else using a website meant for high schoolers.

The writer makes sure to mention something blistering about the professor unrelated to his or her teaching (worth 10 points).

Does your professor dress like a cougar? Or a vagabond? Or like your grandpa? This is why they don’t get your writing: you are attired in Hollister’s fall line, your feet stuffed in your Ugg boots, and your professor looks like he shops at Goodwill. Mention it. “Professor dresses like a weirdo—what’s up with the blazers? Shoulder pads are sooooo ’90s.” (Actually, they’re from the ’80s.) “Hello—the ’70s called and they want their Birkenstocks back.”

RateMyProfessors advises you, in its list of tips, to “keep it profesh,” but you can still throw in something like “Teacher is a dork who talks about Jane Austen EVERY SINGLE CLASS.” Let her have it—don’t feel bad. She failed you! You!

The writer thoroughly reviews all previous RateMyProfessors postings and has successfully refuted the positive ones (worth 15 points).

Do your research. Your goal is to paint a thoroughly horrible portrait of this professor, so make sure nobody has made a claim that could sway the unsuspecting freshman. For example, “I don’t know wtf everyone is talking about. She’s the worst. I emailed her four times on Saturday night and by Monday morning she still hadn’t gotten back to me.” Or how about this: “Not sure why everyone says he’s fair. NOT TRUE! He refused to even accept my paper! How was I supposed to know it has to be typed?” It might take time to review all previous posts, but it will be worth it.

The writer ensures, after convincing his or her friends to also post negatively about this professor, that they all post on different dates (worth 5 points).

Your friends have never had my class, but they’re loyal. Make sure you are strategic in exploiting their enthusiasm. Nothing gives you away more than having 10 negative reviews posted on the same date as yours, which might also be one day after grades come out. Offer a timeline to your friends. “Carrington, you post on Monday, and then Bryce, you wait until Thursday. Got it?” Take charge of the situation and make a schedule.

Also, make sure they don’t repeat the same complaints—vary them slightly. If everyone uses the same wording, as in “Professor has a bit of an attitude,” that indicates that all 10 reviews had the same author. Not everyone uses the phrase “a bit of an attitude”—see? (Refer to No. 2 on the rubric, about concealing your identity.)

The writer successfully pretends that he or she was very interested in the class (worth 20 points).

This is essential. Nothing speaks more about bad teaching than a teacher who completely ruined and destroyed a student’s genuine enthusiasm for a course. “I was so excited to take this class because I love reading Shakespeare. But this professor ruined me forever for English lit. I swear I now suffer PTSD when I open any book at all.” Just don’t take this one too far or you’ll give yourself away. Nobody will believe that you were excited about English 101 or Intro to Physics.

The writer successfully and regularly uses slang and emojis to express ideas that can also be better expressed in actual words (worth 5 points).

Show you know and understand your audience. “UGH!!!! He’s horrible!!!!!! ”

The writer reveals information selectively (worth 5 points).

Mention several times that the professor was not helpful to you. “So unhelpful! She doesn’t even care about her students and wants us all to fail.” Do not mention that you only came to class every other week, so that when you did approach the professor for help the week of finals, she did not know who you were.

The writer clarifies that no student can realistically achieve an A in this class (worth 10 points).

It’s true, right? You didn’t take a survey or anything, but nobody who sat in the back row with you got an A, so you know for a fact that the prof doesn’t give them out. The kid with the glasses, who sat in the front and wears Old Navy, probably did, but he’s a geek anyway. He’s wearing Old Navy.

The writer suggests that the professor should retire (worth 10 points).

That’ll really burn them up.

Bio

Susan Muaddi Darraj has taught English at the college level for 22 years. She is the author of the short story collection A Curious Land: Stories From Home, which won the 2016 Arab American Book Award and a 2016 American Book Award, as well as a children’s chapter book series, Farah Rocks. Susan lives in Baltimore and dares you to check out her RMP reviews. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram: @SusanDarraj

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 2203.11 - 10:10

- Days ago = 2443 days ago

- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I plan to continue Hey Mom posts at least twice per week but will continue to post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.