Gordon P. Hemsley

Linguist by day. Web developer by night.

Posts Tagged ‘English’

My thoughts on Standard English

Posted by Gordon P. Hemsley on February 27, 2011

This post began as a comment on Facebook in response to Clark Whelton’s What Happens in Vagueness Stays in Vagueness and a follow-up to Language Log’s rebuttal, The curious specificity of speechwriters. But it quickly evolved into something that begins to express my feelings about the whole issue of Standard English and how it is taught in (U.S.) schools.

I was discussing these two articles with one of my former English teachers. While conceding that there is no set year (neither the 1985 that Whelton claims nor the 1977 that happens to come up in the LL research) for which the “decline” in writing began, he argued that the decline was indeed upon us. In particular, he claimed that “the idea of the decline in precise, informative, and effectively communicated language is well-founded”. I agreed, but only by reiterating what Mark Liberman wrote on LL:

In fact, the narratives of real children are typically full of detail. The use of appropriate summarizing abstractions develops later, as I understand it; and the ability to speak …at length without saying anything concrete at all is mastered fully only by mature politicians and their speechwriters.

I was claiming that language use is more detailed when we’re children, and it gets more and more simplified as we grow older, as body language and other supra-linguistic cues come into play.

My former English teacher sees the supposed increase of speaking (and writing) without saying anything as being “exacerbated by the gradual infusion of more and more text/IM language into our daily discourse”.

These are the points I brought up in response:

(1) With the advent of the Internet, young people are writing more every day than they used to. Writing has become an integral part of all facets of life, not just the “educated” parts. The difference is, Standard English is not always used online. Because it is not required to be. There are no grades for your writing online. There is nothing stopping you from just pounding the keyboard with your fist and publishing “cfgghjkhgfdjhyhendhxcb” for all the world to see. But that leads to my second point:

(2) Life has become less and less formal over the years. Equality and civil rights have improved, and there is less reason to worry about oppression for who you are or what you say. Thus, the distinction between spoken English and written English, which was once starkly contrasting, has been greatly diminished. People write what they speak, the way they speak. There is no longer any artificial restriction on the process, no translation necessary.

(3) And then there’s the education system. The way English and writing is taught in schools (and I’m not by any means singling any particular teacher out), it’s as if these arbitrary rules are still the only thing out there. The five-paragraph essay, for example. Or the idea that you somehow have to use big words and long sentences to get your point across. Not ending a sentence with a preposition. The list goes on. These are all things that are taught in school, implicitly or explicitly, as if they are the be-all, end-all way to write. Thus, the idea of Standard English that a student has in their head by the time they reach high school and college is so completely skewed from what good writing is that it all becomes incoherent.

So time should not be spent blaming students for their poor writing. It should be spent reforming the system, one step at a time, to eliminate the inconsistencies, dispel the myths, and create better writers. And it should do so by working with the reality that students experience outside of school, not against it, as if school was some alternate dimension where all the rules are different. (This, incidentally, was also the argument behind the ill-fated “Ebonics” debate way-back-when. Teach students in the language and life they already know, and they’ll be better able to see—and take advantage of—the connection between that life and what you’re trying to teach them.)

Then maybe we can knock off all this complaining about bad writing and get back to actually producing something worth reading for a change.

Note: This post was more or less complete by the evening of February 27, but I didn’t get around to publishing it until March 6.

Posted in Linguistics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

wh-movement and T→C movement in English interrogatives

Posted by Gordon P. Hemsley on June 9, 2010

While I was doing my take-home syntax final exam (why do I feel like the modifier order is off in that phrase?) a couple of weeks ago, one of the questions got me thinking. The section of the exam was testing our knowledge of wh-movement and T→C movement in questions, and one particular sentence was giving me a little bit of trouble. To try to figure out where things were supposed to move to, I wound up creating what I’m calling a trace table. That is, a table comparing various related sentences and demonstrating the motivation for various movements. (It’s called a trace table because it allows for an easy comparison of the locations of the tracers and the tracees. And yes, I did just make up those words; and no, I didn’t bother to figure out which is which.)

The particular sentences I used for this trace table all had to do with a man, a cat, and the act of stealing.

I haven’t mentioned yet precisely what about the test question was giving me trouble. It was the fact that, in certain situations, T→C movement does not occur in interrogatives. (Questions in English are normally formed using T→C movement, otherwise known as subject–auxiliary inversion.) So, I decided to figure out exactly what that environment was. We’d previously (accidentally) referenced the situation in class before, but we never went into detail. (Someone happened to ask about a sentence where T→C movement did not occur, and the instructor admitted that she’d been trying to avoid those sentences, so as to avoid overly complicating the lesson.) Beyond that, though, I don’t know what research, if any, has been done regarding these situations. (I assume there has been research, but my extremely brief search did not turn up any.)

Anyway, once the semester was over, I decided to formalize and prettify my trace table and put it up on the Web for all to see.

wh-movement and T→C movement in English interrogatives

The dedicated page goes into more detail, but what it seems to boil down to is this: T→C movement does not occur when there is a trace in the subject position (SpecTP) of the main clause.

I greatly encourage feedback about this, but please read the whole page first, as it has much explanation and background, as well as a more in-depth description of my conclusions. (And please pardon my extensive use of parentheticals in this post; I’m rather tired at the moment, and my brain is wandering all over the place.)

Posted in Linguistics, Web Development | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

GPHemsley.org

Posted by Gordon P. Hemsley on October 13, 2009

I know it’s been a while since I last wrote something here, but I wanted to pop my head in to make a long-overdue announcement. I’ve finally gotten myself an official, centralized place on the Internet: the aptly-named GPHemsley.org. (The .org part means that all donations are accepted—just don’t expect them to be tax deductible.)

I still haven’t gotten it to the point where it contains everything you might want to know about me, but my goal is to eventually make it a one-stop shop for everything I’ve ever done on the Internet. Ever. Right now, though, it just has a list of my blogs and notable papers I’ve written in my college (i.e. adult) career.

I felt this announcement was especially important to make now because there are two linguistics-related blogs writing posts about topics I’ve brought up, and I wouldn’t want to poop the party and have you find out about my new website from them. Perhaps I’ll have made more progress on my website by a week tomorrow.

Posted in Linguistics, Open Source, Web Development | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »