[PLUG-TALK] begging the question

John Jason Jordan johnxj at comcast.net
Sun Oct 4 18:16:55 UTC 2009


On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 08:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Rich Shepard <rshepard at appl-ecosys.com> dijo:

> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, John Jason Jordan wrote:
> 
> > I was struck when, while taking a class on sociolinguistics, the professor
> > informed us that data "are," and that we'd best use it in the plural in
> > our work. This was the same professor I took Intro to Linguistics from,
> > where he proclaimed in the very first class how evil prescriptivism is. It
> > amused me greatly that linguistics professors eschew prescriptivism, and
> > then turn around and prescribe to their students.
> 
>    I never thought of this in linguistic terms, but in terms of singular
> versus plural. A single point (or fact), I was taught early on, is a 'datum'
> and multiple points (observations, measurements, facts) are 'data.'
> Similarly, we speak (and write) of a single 'person' and multiple 'people.'
> Unfortunately (or fortunately if one makes his living as a semanticist),
> such use is not universal. We refer to a single 'sheriff' but to multiple
> 'sheriffs' rather than 'sherifim.' Oh, well. I much prefer 'data are'
> regardless of in what linguistic category that places me.

The key word above is that you were "taught." Natural human language is
not taught. Numerous studies have demonstrated that all efforts of
parents to "teach" language to their children accomplish nothing.
Infants simply pick up what they hear. Here is a famously quoted
passage from psycholinguist Martin Baine, who was trying to stamp out
one of his daughter's grammatical errors:

Child:	Want other spoon Daddy.
Father:	You mean, you want the other spoon.
Child:	Yes, I want other one spoon, please, Daddy.
Father:	Can you say "the other spoon"?
Child:	Other ... one ... spoon.
Father:	Say "other."
Child:	Other.
Father:	"Spoon."
Child:	Spoon.
Father:	"Other ... spoon."
Child:	Other ... spoon. Now give me other one spoon!

And a few months later the child started using the construction
correctly, without further attempts at parental tuition.

Later in school we are taught prescriptive rules. But such rules cannot
be incorporated by infants because they have not yet developed
metalinguistic awareness (are not yet aware of language).

> > When I was 12 years old I was informed by my language arts teacher that
> > it was incorrect to say "people that." People are "who" and things are
> > "that." Like most Americans, I had always used 'who' and 'that'
> > interchangeably for people.
> 
>    Perhaps, again, due to my early education, I have always refered to people
> (and corporations) as 'who' and things as 'that.' The forms with which I
> have not yet come to terms (without losing any sleep over the issue) are
> refering to 'something that' versus 'something which.' I guess that this is
> a result of poor teaching in elementary schools in New York City in the
> 1950s.
> 
> > You cannot win with prescriptivists.
> 
>    Writing is only a competition for professional authors. Unfortunately,
> most people write ambiguously, carelessly, and ineffectively. There is no
> communication because the reader cannot discern what the writer was trying
> to express. This problem is endemic.

This brings an additional dimension to the discussion. What linguists
mean by prescriptive rules are the very short list of language no-nos
we are taught in school. These prescriptive rules typically have little
basis in historical fact, and are quite commonly made up by
self-appointed guardians of the language. None of them affect
understanding. There is nothing unclear about the speech of an English
speaker whose dialect uses negative concord, or using 'that' as the
complementizer for a phrase referring to people.

Teaching careful communication is a completely different matter, one
with which I have little argument. Nor do I disagree with your point
that careless writing is endemic. 

Having said that I should point out that in all human languages there
is a constant struggle between the speaker and the listener (paralleled
in the world of writing and reading). They both wish their job to be as
easy as possible. Thus, the speaker wants to mumble, and the listener
wants the speaker to enunciate with extreme precision. Somewhere in the
middle they meet. This equilibrium happens automatically. You can see a
small piece of the process if you think about occasional homonyms which
become confused. For a while people will use the word carefully. The
speaker might add a phrase to clarify which meaning was intended, or
the listener might have to ask. After a very short time one of the
meanings will be discarded and a different word will be substituted.
This point of equilibrium is invariably the place where communication
is on balance most efficient.

Now, as a reader, I am thrilled when I find a writer who takes care to
make my job easier. I buy more of their books and I recommend them to
friends. As a writer I also make the effort to be clear. But I do so
not so much because it is essential for communication, but because I
was taught to be courteous to others. More importantly, I want people
to buy my books. 

And now I wish to add one personal writing annoyance: not using 'that.'
In late Middle English we developed this strange optional null
complementizer syntax, which drives foreigners nuts.

'I bought the same computer [that] you did.'

You can get away with null 'that' in speech and the utterance is still
crystal clear because we have suprasegmental clues (e.g., intonation,
stress, pitch). In writing those clues are absent. Please, people, if
you can insert a 'that,' do so. (And no, that is is a rule of style,
not a prescriptive language rule.)



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list