"These are “the modern truths about language: language changes constantly; change is normal; spoken language is the language; correctness rests upon usage; all usage is relative.”
There's of course truth to these statements, backed by a lot of linguistic research. Yet one has to be careful so as not to lean too much the other way. Using certain forms of language may be acceptable to your local peer group but may be a marker that others pick up on and label you.
As for "all usage is relative": I think the points pg makes in his essay "Taste for Makers" (http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html) are spot on (though he was talking in the context of art, beauty, and taste):
"Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to design things.
Whatever job people do, they naturally want to do better. Football players like to win games. CEOs like to increase earnings. It's a matter of pride, and a real pleasure, to get better at your job. But if your job is to design things, and there is no such thing as beauty, then there is no way to get better at your job. If taste is just personal preference, then everyone's is already perfect: you like whatever you like, and that's it."
It is better to think of language in the same way we think of maps. Yes, the borders change over time. Yes the map, even a few years ago looks different, but if you start talking about Kashmir you're going to start a lot of fights, and if you say that Paris isn't necessarily in France, people will think you're a lunatic.
As it stands, i don't care how you say the plural of octopus, but if you say something "begs the question" that better end your sentence, you plebe.
This is one place where pg is simply flat-out wrong, on a couple of levels. If taste being mere preference meant that you couldn't be better at design, no matter how many people want it to be possible to be better at design, that wouldn't refute that taste is preference. That something implies something people don't like doesn't make it untrue.
But more fundamentally, he's wrong that taste being preference makes it impossible to get better at design. A big part of design -- as with any form of communication -- is understanding the particular audience you are targeting and how to address that audience. In design that means understanding the preferences in the target audience and how best to make tradeoffs among them to achieve the effect you want -- whether it's too maximize appeal to a narrow group with cohesive preferences or a broad group with divers preferences. You can get better at that even though taste if preference.
You may not be able to reduce the practical skill involved readily to simple mechanical rules, but for designers that's a good thing if true -- it means it'll be hard to automate then away.
Taste is entirely a personal preference. The trick is to get other people to agree with your own. It's hard to look at the drastically different ideas of what is "tasteful" across different cultures and believe that there's any such thing as a universal view on it. We only have that mindset because Western/American culture in particular has been promulgated across the world and poeple in Hollywood or SV have chosen what is or isn't fine.
Also, who cares if people label you for your use of language. Those people can get over themselves. Some of the linguistic tricks from those in the lowest rungs of society now dominate our discourse and it's because they didn't care.
This article does a very poor job of acknowledging and discussing the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics.
In contrast, David Foster Wallace's essay "Authority and American Usage" (pdf: http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsag...) is an excellent, though lengthy, discussion of these issues. I can't recommend it enough to anyone interested in these sorts of things.
There is such a thing as linguistic prescription, but there isn't really such a thing as "prescriptive linguistics". There are linguists, who study and describe language, and then there are people who promulgate their opinions about language. Opinion promulgators are not "prescriptive linguists" and what they practice is not "prescriptive linguistics".
I used to be a pretty big pedant, then I took a semester of a lingusitcs program and the point was hammered home that language really is relative. Right/wrong has very little place in the topic.
I can't find the exact quote but in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky makes some statement about how the ability for any person to speak, use, invent, modify, evolve language proves that everyone, not just a select few, are inherently creative and intelligent. We just don't always harness it. Of course, there are some limits to that statement (Chomsky would know that more than anyone else), but it rings true.
The idioms and phrases that we deem correct today were incorrect at some point in the past and there are phrases that sound wrong now which will be perfectly natural in the future. Being a pedant is a waste of time, what's more: it stifles creativity.
As a small example, I constantly see "bias" used in place of "biased" and "dominate" used in place of "dominant" online, usually in discussions about sports. I hate those uses every single time I see them (especially the latter because the spelling/sounds don't even match), but I've come to realize that language will often simplify itself and take shortcuts, and that may be what's happening here.
What would be really interesting is to track the evolution of language, which you could do online very well, even perhaps arriving to the origin of certain words/phrases, etc.
It's really a fascinating topic if you can let your own bias get out of the way.
A Way with Words is a fantastic podcast, also aired on many NPR stations. Definitely check it out if this topic interests you. http://www.waywordradio.org/
They usually have a segment about tracking the origins of certain words/phrases, often to a regional dialect. And they have segments about pet peeves or settling grammar disputes, e.g., between spouses.
Listening to the show has helped my pedantic tendencies. I still think it's important to know the current established, mainstream grammar rules and vocabulary, but it's also important to understand that language is always evolving and highly dependent upon context.
I feel the same way about women/woman. It used to irk me when I saw someone mix the two up, but then I realized I do it all the time by accident. For example, in the first draft of this very comment.
My pedantry is involuntary, these rules were drilled into me as a kid. When I see a mistake my eye gets snagged on it, as if I were running and stumbled over - it's annoying. So this article doesn't help me much personally.
I would say that unless you know the rules (imaginary or real), it's not possible to break them in a way that is interesting. A programming example: PEP 8 makes no difference to whether or not your Python code will run. You can quite happily code all day without knowing anything about it. There are also plenty of times when you shouldn't follow it religiously. But without reading it and taking on board what it means, people will find reading your code more tiresome, and you won't know when to break the rules in a way that's helpful or interesting for the reader. The same, I believe, applies to English grammar.
Code is written with two kinds of readers in mind: the computer and other humans. Prose is written just for humans.
With code, there is a very precise set of rules determining whether the code will be readable by a computer. There is no correspondingly precise set of rules for understandability by humans.
I can see the analogy between PEP 8 and grammar rules, but I think there's an important distinction in the provenance of those rules. PEP 8 is a formal proposal adopted by the BDFL. There is no mechanism for submitting or approving formal proposals for English grammar rules. So the spoken language is always the authority on what's correct and what isn't.
That's a fantastic point. You can communicate a lot by using one rule instead of another, or purposefully breaking a rule. But that doesn't work if you don't know the rules in the first place.
The topic is complex. Author is right that law/science/anything-orginated standard of language is a trap and misunderstanding. On the other hand this can be easly interpreted as "we can speak just as we want".
As a language freak (and polyglot by the way) I have found out that one should develop his own language and in fact he/she's gonna do it anyway, the only choise - consciously or not. I've choosen to constantly improve my language and I like this decision, I've seen how big is language's influence on speaker. It's just like an operating system for computer.
On the other hand if you want communicate efficiently you must accept the fact that everybody have own word meanings and speak a little differently and you should adapt to it. Another thing is relation language-subconsciousness, I belive there's very broad influence. Those factors that make caring about language worth. By the way conforming national standard is not the best way: "who's language - he/she rules", so if you want to rule, you need your personal.
If enough people make the same error, especially if they're sufficiently high-status, eventually it becomes standard usage. But there's a transitional period during which those who care about clear communication are understandably disturbed by the mistake. E.g., the usage "I'm going to lay down" is wrong, but it's common even among educated speakers. (In this context "lay" requires an object; the right usage is "I'm going to lie down" or, more poetically, "I'm going to lay myself down.") Shall we simply lay down—sorry, lie down—and accept such linguistic shifts, or shall we rage against the dying of the lie, er, light?
What does this say for the GMAT? The test has two categories: verbal and quantitative. 35% of Verbal questions fall into a category called 'Sentence Correction', which test grammar. Many correct answers to these questions are hotly-debated and often in contradiction to current style guides.
Perhaps, there is some value in segmenting test-takers in their ability to learn and apply an arbitrary set of rules in place of their own. But, perhaps not.
Sure, but is there a point to all those boring English classes?
I need to speak in a clear way for others to understand me. That may not mean speaking how my English teachers in public school expected me to.
It's like starting a company. You have an idea, a product, but you have to build custom scaffolding, engineering, human resources. Whatever. There may be some common patterns/idioms one can rely on for guidance, but you'll rarely ever cling to them religiously.
Which is, IMO (though backed by academic research as well), where a lot of this pedantry originates. Humans and their long history of forcing our personal notions of right/wrong on each other.
It's ideas like this article, and this ensuing discussion that prop up my hope that we'll maybe, possibly, start realizing it's bullshit. Instead of saying "Hey, do it my way." we'll start asking how we can be of use.
Eh, if language is primarily about communication, there are many benefits to standardization. It feels like a cop-out to just say that everyone gets to make up their own rules of grammar. People also used to make up their own spellings, but standardizing increased the efficacy of communication.
There are benefits to standardization, but only if it is a decent standardization. As the article points out, language is about communicating ideas. A standardization that makes this task harder is probably worse than a non-standardized way that makes it easier.
What's the value of a community writing them down in a book and teaching them rote like, en mass, when they already know them and hand them down organically to their kids?
Attempting to do so quickly devolves into "right/wrong" thinking. Which is the exact opposite of what this article and volumes of academic research suggest is reality.
If you encounter a language barrier, figure it out with those folks. Oh noes, human interaction! Just read this book instead and come back to me when you're on a level.
OK, so I'm being glib, but the point is obvious; just talk to people.
But there's a key difference between language and writing: while writing is taught formally, language is learnt by imitation. If that's how we've evolved to use language, I don't see how standardisation could even make sense.
Regarding language being about communication, I think a subtlety is often missed: what are we communicating? our choice of linguistic conventions communicates a lot about the community we identify with, our status, age, etc.
I think that would require a consensus among experts to adopt a language specification. That would also be a good time to clean out any artifactual warts.
English sentence construction flexibility is super. You can invent a construction to fit your point (and nothing else), but that doesn't mean there are hard rules.
I genuinely think it is useful to have articles like this on HN. We do have our share of pedants, and many with comments that do nothing but correct someone's grammar or spelling. I suppose a debate can be had over how useful any of that is. Is it worth shutting down or diverting a discussion due to things like grammar?
[+] [-] Jun8|10 years ago|reply
There's of course truth to these statements, backed by a lot of linguistic research. Yet one has to be careful so as not to lean too much the other way. Using certain forms of language may be acceptable to your local peer group but may be a marker that others pick up on and label you.
As for "all usage is relative": I think the points pg makes in his essay "Taste for Makers" (http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html) are spot on (though he was talking in the context of art, beauty, and taste):
"Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to design things.
Whatever job people do, they naturally want to do better. Football players like to win games. CEOs like to increase earnings. It's a matter of pride, and a real pleasure, to get better at your job. But if your job is to design things, and there is no such thing as beauty, then there is no way to get better at your job. If taste is just personal preference, then everyone's is already perfect: you like whatever you like, and that's it."
[+] [-] scoofy|10 years ago|reply
As it stands, i don't care how you say the plural of octopus, but if you say something "begs the question" that better end your sentence, you plebe.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
But more fundamentally, he's wrong that taste being preference makes it impossible to get better at design. A big part of design -- as with any form of communication -- is understanding the particular audience you are targeting and how to address that audience. In design that means understanding the preferences in the target audience and how best to make tradeoffs among them to achieve the effect you want -- whether it's too maximize appeal to a narrow group with cohesive preferences or a broad group with divers preferences. You can get better at that even though taste if preference.
You may not be able to reduce the practical skill involved readily to simple mechanical rules, but for designers that's a good thing if true -- it means it'll be hard to automate then away.
[+] [-] aaron-lebo|10 years ago|reply
Also, who cares if people label you for your use of language. Those people can get over themselves. Some of the linguistic tricks from those in the lowest rungs of society now dominate our discourse and it's because they didn't care.
[+] [-] felixhandte|10 years ago|reply
In contrast, David Foster Wallace's essay "Authority and American Usage" (pdf: http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsag...) is an excellent, though lengthy, discussion of these issues. I can't recommend it enough to anyone interested in these sorts of things.
[+] [-] nohat00|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron-lebo|10 years ago|reply
I can't find the exact quote but in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky makes some statement about how the ability for any person to speak, use, invent, modify, evolve language proves that everyone, not just a select few, are inherently creative and intelligent. We just don't always harness it. Of course, there are some limits to that statement (Chomsky would know that more than anyone else), but it rings true.
The idioms and phrases that we deem correct today were incorrect at some point in the past and there are phrases that sound wrong now which will be perfectly natural in the future. Being a pedant is a waste of time, what's more: it stifles creativity.
As a small example, I constantly see "bias" used in place of "biased" and "dominate" used in place of "dominant" online, usually in discussions about sports. I hate those uses every single time I see them (especially the latter because the spelling/sounds don't even match), but I've come to realize that language will often simplify itself and take shortcuts, and that may be what's happening here.
What would be really interesting is to track the evolution of language, which you could do online very well, even perhaps arriving to the origin of certain words/phrases, etc.
It's really a fascinating topic if you can let your own bias get out of the way.
[+] [-] Tenhundfeld|10 years ago|reply
They usually have a segment about tracking the origins of certain words/phrases, often to a regional dialect. And they have segments about pet peeves or settling grammar disputes, e.g., between spouses.
Listening to the show has helped my pedantic tendencies. I still think it's important to know the current established, mainstream grammar rules and vocabulary, but it's also important to understand that language is always evolving and highly dependent upon context.
[+] [-] mkr-hn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sweezyjeezy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Swizec|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ad-hominem|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] scotchmi_st|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjt|10 years ago|reply
Code is written with two kinds of readers in mind: the computer and other humans. Prose is written just for humans.
With code, there is a very precise set of rules determining whether the code will be readable by a computer. There is no correspondingly precise set of rules for understandability by humans.
I can see the analogy between PEP 8 and grammar rules, but I think there's an important distinction in the provenance of those rules. PEP 8 is a formal proposal adopted by the BDFL. There is no mechanism for submitting or approving formal proposals for English grammar rules. So the spoken language is always the authority on what's correct and what isn't.
[+] [-] bsummer4|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkr-hn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barteklev|10 years ago|reply
As a language freak (and polyglot by the way) I have found out that one should develop his own language and in fact he/she's gonna do it anyway, the only choise - consciously or not. I've choosen to constantly improve my language and I like this decision, I've seen how big is language's influence on speaker. It's just like an operating system for computer.
On the other hand if you want communicate efficiently you must accept the fact that everybody have own word meanings and speak a little differently and you should adapt to it. Another thing is relation language-subconsciousness, I belive there's very broad influence. Those factors that make caring about language worth. By the way conforming national standard is not the best way: "who's language - he/she rules", so if you want to rule, you need your personal.
As usual, we need to find the golden mean.
[+] [-] lexcorvus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vincentbarr|10 years ago|reply
Perhaps, there is some value in segmenting test-takers in their ability to learn and apply an arbitrary set of rules in place of their own. But, perhaps not.
[+] [-] elchief|10 years ago|reply
"I need a lead-acid battery, fifty units of plasma, some bolt cutters, and something called a - Defrimbulator?"
"That's a made-up word."
"They're all made up."
[+] [-] tormeh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wrsh07|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeroBanna1spec|10 years ago|reply
I need to speak in a clear way for others to understand me. That may not mean speaking how my English teachers in public school expected me to.
It's like starting a company. You have an idea, a product, but you have to build custom scaffolding, engineering, human resources. Whatever. There may be some common patterns/idioms one can rely on for guidance, but you'll rarely ever cling to them religiously.
Which is, IMO (though backed by academic research as well), where a lot of this pedantry originates. Humans and their long history of forcing our personal notions of right/wrong on each other.
It's ideas like this article, and this ensuing discussion that prop up my hope that we'll maybe, possibly, start realizing it's bullshit. Instead of saying "Hey, do it my way." we'll start asking how we can be of use.
[+] [-] Zigurd|10 years ago|reply
Now I need to take a shower.
[+] [-] hnal943|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vonmoltke|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkr-hn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeroBanna1spec|10 years ago|reply
What's the value of a community writing them down in a book and teaching them rote like, en mass, when they already know them and hand them down organically to their kids?
Attempting to do so quickly devolves into "right/wrong" thinking. Which is the exact opposite of what this article and volumes of academic research suggest is reality.
If you encounter a language barrier, figure it out with those folks. Oh noes, human interaction! Just read this book instead and come back to me when you're on a level.
OK, so I'm being glib, but the point is obvious; just talk to people.
[+] [-] archena|10 years ago|reply
Regarding language being about communication, I think a subtlety is often missed: what are we communicating? our choice of linguistic conventions communicates a lot about the community we identify with, our status, age, etc.
[+] [-] threatofrain|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Uhhrrr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkr-hn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p3d4nt|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] russelluresti|10 years ago|reply
...
</sarcasm>
[+] [-] noarchy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gergles|10 years ago|reply