Language
Myths (1998) ed. by Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill
Synopses
of Selected Language Myths
The mind is
dialectical in that one concept, the thesis, is followed by its opposite, the
antithesis, which conflict and produce a higher concept, the synthesis.
--Georg Frederick Hegel
Women Talk
Too Much
Janet Holmes
Thesis: Proverbs and humorous
anecdotes in many languages attest to the existence of a persistent
stereotype: women talk more than men. (Many examples given before
text begins; read some in class). Here the author raises the
question: Is there any evidence that the stereotype has any basis in
fact?
Antithesis: "Despite the
widespread belief that women talk more than men, most of the available evidence
suggests just the opposite. When women and men are together, it is men
who talk most." (p. 42) Hundreds of case studies back up
this conclusion.
Synthesis: The explanation
(synthesis) that accounts for the discrepancy between the stereotype (thesis,
myth) and the research cited (antithesis) is based on an analysis of the
pragmatic context. To quote our author Janet Holmes:
"Overall … women seem to use talk to
develop relationships and maintain family connections and friendships more
often than to make claims to status or directly influence others in public
contexts." (p. 45)
(McG: Note that this explanation
appeals to the purpose of communication, or what our web site has called
`transactional' vs. `interactional' use of language. This has to do with
the E (Ends) to which language is put.)
McGinn's
synthesis: In narrow linguistic terms there should be no difference
between men's and women's speech in matters of fluency or complexity of thought
and expression. But pragmatically, there are plenty of occasions where
men tend to shut up and women hold center stage, and plenty of others when just
the opposite occurs. So any research into men’s and women’s speech has to
take account of the social context.
Some Languages Are Harder Than Others
Lars Gunnar-Anderson
Linguistics teaches that every natural language is a complex
system of human communication that can (and must) be analyzed in terms of
several levels: phonology, morphology, syntax, and rules of usage.
True, any level in one language might be relatively less complex than the same
level in another language; for example, Hawaiian with only 13 phonemes has a
simpler phonology than the Khosian languages with 156 phonemes including 78
clicks! But most languages cluster in the middle with around 40-50
phonemes. Similarly, languages with analytic syntax are simpler in the
syntax than languages with synthetic (morpho-)syntax. We know this
because children who acquire synthetic languages always start out using
analytic "baby talk". But as emphasized in Myths 10, 13 and 19,
there is no known language that is simple in EVERY respect (the only exceptions
being pidgins and some creoles as noted above).
In The
Appalachians They Speak Like Shakespeare
Michael
Montgomery
Thesis: In many parts of Appalachia
the local dialect is very close to Elizabethan English as spoken around the
year 1600. This myth was formulated by outsiders, and is very is robust
for two reasons: it is romantic (hence attractive); and it is and
politically useful (helps outsiders appreciate the mountain folk).
Antithesis: But the so-called
attractiveness of the myth does not make it true. The thesis is of
doubtful validity because:
a. It
is vague—so much so that linguists are not interested in exploring it
b. It often cites wrong examples: clumb and fotch and tee-toncey (`tiny’)
are not actually Elizabethan.
c. It is historically wrong—Appalachians didn’t come from England at all; most
were from Scotland and Northern Ireland, and also from all over Europe.
d. It is misleading—Appalachian children cannot read and understand Shakespeare
any better than children from other dialect areas.
Synthesis: Appalachian English does
contain quite a few archaisms which are also found in Chaucer and
Shakespeare: holp, afeard, learn (meaning
`teach’). More than anything, however, the myth does no harm, and may even
be useful because it helps outsiders appreciate these mountain folk, and not
disdain them as mere hillbillies!
Some
Languages Have No Grammar
Laurie Bauer
Thesis: Some languages have no
grammar (= title of this essay).
Antithesis: Bauer argues from
evidence that every language has complex rules of phonology, morphology,
syntax, and discourse/pragmatics. We saw some of the same arguments
applied in Myth 7 (Some Languages are Harder Than Others) and Myth 13
(Aborigines speak a primitive language). Thus, while it may be true that
some languages have a relatively simper phonology or morphology, such languages
always have complexities in other areas, e.g. syntax. There is no
linguistic evidence that ANY natural human language is simple in every
respect: phonology AND morphology AND syntax. (McG: The myth
actually contradicts one of the basic slogans (assumptions) adopted in this
course: There are no primitive languages.
Synthesis: Bauer allows that Myth 10
can perhaps be said to true in a limited and scientifically uninteresting
sense: If what is really meant is: “Language X has no written
grammar (or dictionary)" ... well, that may be so. But this point is
regarded as irrelevant by linguists, as expressed by another slogan of the
course: Language is speech, not writing. In other words, lacking a
dictionary or a grammar book does not imply that there is any deficiency in the
"mental grammar" carried around inside the speakers' heads.
Bad Grammar
Is Slovenly
Lesley
Milroy
Thesis: Speakers of English make
lots of errors out of laziness.
Milroy: Lots of hue and cry about
"bad grammar" in the BBC and other sources.
Three categories of bad sentence
constructions are often cited:
a) Who am I speaking to --> To whom …
b) Martha's two children are completely different to each other
--> from each
other
c) I want to quickly visit the library --> … to visit the
library quickly.
Antithesis:
1. First, rationalizations used to support
these prescriptions are shaky at best. For example, arguments against (b)
fail to consider that the collocation different to is supported by many
other expressions headed by adjectives (superior to, equal to,
and similar to). The facts suggest that the Adj+to pattern is
being generalized to embrace different to in this London dialect.
Second, prescriptive rules based on Latin grammar rules are invalid for
English: hence the "rule" against the so-called "split
infinitive" in (c) is invalid for English, which often splits infinitives
(remember Captain Kirk's famous directive: To boldly go where no man
has gone before). Third, there are stylistic differences that warrant
both examples in (a). Strict adherence to the prescriptive
"rule" can lead to odd results: ??A good author needs to
develop a clear sense of for whom she is writing.
2. What is
"grammar"? Let us distinguish between prescriptive grammar,
descriptive grammar, and mental grammar. Prescriptive
grammar arises from the need for standardization (Bishop Lowth, Dr. Johnson).
Descriptive grammar arises from linguist's attempts to describe the structure
of any given dialect. Mental grammar is what the speaker knows
(unconsciously), and what the descriptive linguist is trying to discover and
describe.
3. Descriptive rules are very
complex (much more so than prescriptive rules, in fact!), and every dialect is
equally complex, even the so-called low-status dialects. (McG:
Remember the slogan: Everybody speaks a dialect.)
4. (McG: To illustrate, Milroy
evokes the famous "Chomskyian hierarchy" without naming it as
such: How are yes/no questions formed in English? This point will
be explained in class.)
5. Milroy next illustrates that a
sentence like Yous wash the dishes does not arise from ignorance but
from the fact that in this London dialect the plural of you (sing.) is yous.
This is simply a fact about this dialect; similar facts are found in many other
languages around the world, such as German and French, which also distinguish
between singular and plural pronouns.
6. Dialectal differences are never a
sign of linguistic impoverishment. One linguist has described linguistic
prescriptivism as the last open door to discrimination.
7. Two more examples of so-called
"errors":
a) Me and Andy went out to the
park.
b) It's very awkward ... it's
difficult mind you ... with a class of thirty odd ... occasionally with the
second form ... you'll get, you know ... well, we'll we'll have ... erm ... a
debate.
The broken discourse in (b) represents
perfectly natural speech often observed in free conversations.
The sentence in (a) is common in
unmonitored speech among the young all over the world (sometimes called
"universal slang"). Educated middle-class speakers avoid the me
and him constructions, but at the same time they are often befuddled
by the prescriptive rules governing the use of the personal pronouns I
and me. Consider former President Clinton, who said: Give
Al Gore and I a chance. And Margaret Thatcher once said: It's
not for you and I to condemn the Malawi economy.
The descriptive fact is, subjective me
is allowed in informal English only under conjunction. Even Clinton would
not say: *Give I a chance.
Milroy's Axiom: DESCRIPTIVE RULES
ARE NEITHER SUBJECT TO VIOLATION NOR ARE THEY PART OF OUR CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE
OF LANGUAGE. (p. 101)
Consider example (b)
again. This is an actual language sample transcribed in a coffee shop in
London. It is typical of certain styles (Labov calls it "careful
speech phenomenon". ). It is not an appropriate style for written
English; rather it represents an "interactive, online mode of
production". (p. 101).
Conclusion: Milroy's Axiom (above)
plus the assertion that ALL THE EXAMPLES GIVEN IN THIS ESSAY ARE PERFECTLY
GRAMMATICAL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MENTAL GRAMMAR OF REAL SPEAKERS. NONE
OF THE EXPRESSIONS ARE CAUSED BY SLOVENLINESS. RATHER, THEY REFLECT
EITHER DISTINCT SPEECH STYLES, OR REGIONAL DIALECT GROUPS, OR LOW-STATUS SOCIAL
DIALECT GROUPS. BY COMPARISON, THE PRESCRIPTIONS WHICH ARE RECOMMENDED AS
`GOOD GRAMMAR' ARE REVEALED AS AT BEST MARGINAL AND FREQUENTLY AS UNREALISTIC
AND TRIVIAL.
(McG: The thesis contradicts two of
the basic “slogans” (assumptions) adopted in this course: (1) Everybody
speaks a dialect. (2) There are no primitive languages (implies
there are no primitive dialects, either.))
Black
Children are Verbally Deprived
Walt Wolfram
Thesis: Black children are
verbally deprived (=title of essay).
Antithesis: Black people are known for
eloquence, not only in Africa but also speaking in English (Frederick Douglass,
MLK, Jessie Jackson, Barbara Jordan). Thus it is ironic that the Black
culture produces eloquent people and at the same time their children are
`verbally deprived’.
Synthesis: It is true there
are different varieties of English, and that Black Vernacular English is
different than SAE. So the real issues concern dialect choice, power and prestige.
Let's face it: Anyone speaking a
non-standard dialect is going to have to learn to conform if they want to be
successful in the wider society. Why is this?
The
“linguistic
security” factor (Myth 17) suggests that subordinate groups tend
to be looked
down upon by the socially dominant group. This (social)
principle holds as a constant. What is sad is that in order to
hold on to the belief that they are socially superior, the dominant
group will spin explanation after explanation, all of them misleading
or downright false.
• For
example, during slavery, slaves were considered by many whites to be
intellectually deficient because their speech sounded so simple
and unsophisticated. BUT IN FACT, SLAVES
SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGES WERE KEPT APART—THUS FORCING THEM
TO RESORT TO USING PIDGIN ENGLISH AMONG THEMSELVES. HEARING
THIS PIDGIN ENGLISH, MANY WHITES DREW A FALSE CONCLUSION
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS' INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES.
• Anatomically based explanations are just
false.
• “Evidence” based on standardized tests
is invalid, because the verbal parts are biased toward the dominant culture.
(see Chitling
tests here)
• Grammatical differences are often evoked
as evidence that AAVE 'has no grammatical rules'. But this is patently
false. (See Myth 10.)
•
Other grammatical differences are used to 'prove' that users of AAVE
are illogical. This, too, is false. (See Myth 14).
• Shyness, or a sense of not-belonging, may also be a factor to account
for why some Black children seem non-verbal in school.
According to the author, Walt
Wolfram, “In challenging the myth of Black language deprivation, I am not
trying to say that the language of the home and community is appropriate for
the particularized and socialized uses of language in education and other kinds
of public institutions.” (p. 111) In other words, Wolfram does NOT
advocate simply teaching Ebonics in school alongside SAE. The educational solutions are
complex—and will be taken up in the eighth week of the course.
Double
Negatives Are Illogical
Jenny
Cheshire
Thesis: Three types of “condemned”
double negatives are illustrated by quotations at the head of the essay.
Each has been criticized as illogical from time to time.
1. not untrue, not unkind (George
Orwell said such expressions should be `laughed out
of existence')
2. You won't get nothin' for dinner
… (one of top ten complaints sent in 1986 to the BBC)
3. "It never occurred to me to
doubt that your work would not advance our common object in the highest
degree" --Charles Darwin. (Fowler's Guide to Good Usage cites this as an
example of a "fuzzy error" that occurs when people don't know exactly
how to handle negatives.)
Antithesis: (Cheshire's best
argument, which refutes the supposed illogicality of (2), appears at the end of
the article): Language usage does not always follow the rules of
logic. Linguistically it is simply not true that double negation always
yields a positive. In actual usage, multiple negatives like (2) have an
additive, emphatic value, in most dialects of English, including Old English
and Middle English, and in many other languages as well, such as Spanish and
French.
As for type (1) DNs, she points out
that the `not un-(Adj)' type of double negatives, far from being illogical,
allow the expression of subtle degrees of negation, which frees us from rigid
binary yes or no judgments.
As for type (3) DNs, she admits that
these are sometimes hard to process and are limited to written styles.
But they have their place, too, and are not fuzzy--only dense.
Synthesis: There isn’t any synthesis
in this myth: the antithesis stands without qualification. The only
possible concession is that Cheshire does acknowledge that double negatives of
type (2) mark the speaker as non-standard (but certainly not as illogical !).
They Speak
Really Bad English Down South and in New York City
By Dennis R.
Preston
Thesis put succinctly: The myth is
that “some varieties of English are not as good as others.” (p. 140)
Research shows just how entrenched this myth is. “Respondents from all
over the US confirm the myth that some regions speak better English than
others, and they do not hesitate to indicate that NYC and the South are on the
bottom of that pile.” (p. 148).
Thesis developed further:
Michiganders marked their own area as “neutral” and other areas as “speaking
incorrect English”. The name for this perspective is “linguistic
security”. By contrast, Southerners suffer from what linguists call
“linguistic insecurity” because they do NOT mark their own area as representing
“correct” English, but they do regard their own dialect “the most
pleasant-sounding”; and they also use it as a badge of solidarity. But
when asked to mark out the area of “correct” English they do not choose
Michigan. Rather, to mark the “best” English they tend to circle the
national capital, Washington, D.C., or mention a generalized, TV-Announcer
English.
Antithesis: (McG: Linguistics
is the scientific study of language which entails studying human
languages/dialects in their spoken form (because language is speech, not
writing). All the scientific evidence denies the superiority of any one
language or dialect. As there are no primitive languages, so there are no
primitive dialects; and no one dialect is better than another; and besides, everyone
speaks a dialect. As in biology, so in languages and dialects:
roses and dandelions have equal value.)
Synthesis: Preston develops the
argument that society (not the science of linguistics) is what demands
standardization. This demand leads every society to make a practical
choice of one dialect to serve as the standard for the whole nation. But
one that step is taken, it does not justify the rationalization of that choice
as the “best” dialect, nor to promote outright prejudice against the dialects
of certain groups of citizens.
Aborigines
Speak a Primitive Language
Nicholas
Evans
Thesis: Australian aborigines speak
a language so primitive that it has a limited vocabulary of no more than 500
words, and no grammar at all. Living in the stone age, they lacked a
written language
Antithesis: No natural human
language on earth has ever been found that is “primitive” in any
linguistic sense. All languages are structured similarly:
phonological, morphological, and syntactic systems designed to express an
infinity of messages of great subtlety and range. The aboriginal
languages of Australia are no exception. Their spoken languages are as
complete as French or Russian, including a vast oral literature, a complex system
of religious beliefs, and a rich vocabulary expressing wide knowledge of the
Australian natural world. These facts have been proven repeatedly
after over one hundred years of linguistic and anthropological research.
Moreover, modern Aboriginal languages are rapidly developing new vocabulary and
concepts to deal with the twentieth century. In this they are no
different than English, which is always readily creating, adopting, or
borrowing words to refer to new social events and technological innovations.
(McG: Two assumptions are important here: (a) Language is
speech, not writing; (b) There are no primitive languages.
Synthesis: Evans does not offer any
synthesis, so strongly does he disagree with the tenor of this harmful
myth. (McG: In order to understand the linguistic points that Evans
is making, it is probably helpful to make one concession. One can and
should admit that militarily, economically, and politically the Australian
aborigines had far simpler social systems than the Europeans that “discovered”
them in the seventeenth century. For example, the Europeans had ships and
guns which the aborigines lacked, nor did they have a strong central
government. However, the aborigines’ social structures were well adapted
to the environment they lived in for 40,000 years before the arrival of
Europeans.)
Everyone Has
An Accent Except Me
John H.
Esling
Thesis: Everyone who speaks
differently than I do has an accent, and everyone who speaks like me does not
have an accent.
Many mid-Westerners believe that their own
speech lacks distinguishing features of any kind. (See Myth 17 for some
negative consequences of this belief.) They enjoy `linguistic security’,
in contrast to others who realize their dialect is unique suffer `linguistic
insecurity’. The attitude of the `secure’ group is like the fish who was
surprised to learn he was swimming in water. He didn’t realize it until
he was removed from the safety and comfort of his natural environment.
Antithesis: The fact is that
everyone has an accent. It tells other people who we are and where we
have been. (p. 169) This fact follows from our slogan:
`Everybody speaks a dialect’.
Synthesis: The author, John H.
Esling, acknowledges that many people strive to change their accent.
Therefore, we must admit on some level that there exist dialects that are more
desirable and dialects that are less desirable.
He mentions the story of Eliza Dolittle
and Professor Henry Higgins in the movie My Fair Lady (based on George
Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion). But linguistically speaking, we
would not say that Eliza was learning a "better" dialect; rather, she
was learning the dialect of upper-crust British society in order to
"better herself" socially.
America Is
Ruining the English Language
John Algeo
Thesis: America is ruining the
English language (= title of essay).
1. You hear this one all the
time—but is it true?
2. The British used to say it during
colonial times (e.g. complained about the new word bluff `steep
bank’), and sometimes still do. For example, in 1995 Prince Charles
complained in the newspaper that American English is “very corrupting.”
3. An interesting case of “blaming
us for everything” arose when a recent change in Britain for the word conTROVversy
was blamed on America, when in fact this pronunciation is unknown in the U.S.
Antithesis: “Change in language
is inevitable, just as it is in every other aspect of reality. ... We don’t have to like particular
changes … but a language or anything else that ceases to change is dead.”
(Algeo, p. 178).
But is every change a
degeneration? Many changes are actually improvements, such as the word bluff—because
this geographic feature abounds in the U.S. but is practically unknown in
England. Besides, the British have invented new forms, too. The following Act Sequence occurs
often in British speech—especially films and television. It is slightly
rude but gets the point across in a way that Americans readily understand, but
would never use.
A: “Is the tea ready?”
B: “The water has to
boil, doesn’t it?”
So it's not just American English that is changing! In certain respects American
English is actually more conservative than British English. Here are some examples:
a. retention of
post-vocalic -r in words like more, mother in most American dialects
b. retention of four
syllables with secondary stress on the 'a' of -ary in words like secretary
and dictionary
c. retention of the word guess
meaning `think, suppose’
d. retention of gotten
and got with different meanings (Am: 'I have gotten a cold/I have
got a cold'' vs. Brit: I have got a cold. (British English has lost the
word gotten)
e. retention of
subjunctive in `mandative’ expressions: (Am: 'We insisted that he
leave' vs. Brit: 'We insisted that he should leave').
But of course, American English itself has innovated many features, and will
continue to do so. The following features are characteristic of the
speech of practically all Americans for whom English is their native language.
a. Most Americans rhyme callous
and Alice
b. Most Americans have merged
the vowels in father and fodder
c. Americans no longer
use the word reckon `think’ (sounds old-fashioned to us).
d. Americans no longer
use the word fortnight ('period of two weeks')
e. Americans changed the
meaning of the word corn to mean only `maize’ (whereas in England the word
corn means `grain’).
f. Americans say:
Do you have the time? (or Have you got the time?) vs. British: Have you
the time? (cf. Black sheep, black sheep, have you any wool?)
(Anecdote: An American teacher in Singapore was criticized for saying "I
already ate" by speakers of British English who prefer "I have
eaten.")
g. Americans say fond
of vs. Brits: keen on
Synthesis: When all the evidence is examined, both varieties of
English have changed somewhat, and both are conservative to a certain degree.
Which dialect is the more conservative depends on which linguistic features are
under discussion. What is undeniable is that the Brits tend to be more
aware of `Americanisms' than Americans are of `Briticisms'. (p. 181
bottom).
Last
paragraph: nice use of irony by Algeo: “Is America the ruination of
English? Certainly, ... if what John Adams foresaw was ruination!”