বুধবার, ১৩ ফেব্রুয়ারী, ২০১৩

How to write a descriptivist usage guide - Peter Harvey, linguist

There might seem to be a contradiction between being a descriptivist in language terms and being the author of a usage guide that has been compared to Fowler?s Modern English Usage. After all, the purpose of such a guide is to tell people what to do, though Fowler himself is often more tolerant than is commonly believed. My view is that there is no harm in telling people what the current situation of the language is. There is no doubt that people are judged by the way in which they write and speak. Poor use of English, in terms of vocabulary and formality as well as in the more common field of ?grammar?, which seems to be becoming a catch-all name for anything from spelling to punctuation to semantics with the occasional look at syntax, reflects badly on anyone who has a concern for the image that they present to the world. I am on record as saying that apostrophes are a menace and should be abolished, yet I use them correctly in my own writing and I teach their use to my students. Why? Because I know the reactions of people who regard the correct use of the apostrophe as a shibboleth of good ?grammar? and the last thing I want is to be accused of poor usage or to have my students being accused of it when they practise what I teach them.

That is when they practise it with an s or put it into practice with a c. If I were American, I and they would also practice it with a c. You have to know these things or people will say that you don?t know English grammar (though this, like apostrophes, has absolutely nothing to do with grammar). Similar nonsense is to be found with the nouns dependant and descendant contrasting with the adjectives dependent and descendent, though the OED is more tolerant than is often assumed on this point, as indeed it is on many others.

{dependant}, -dent, n.

[a. F. d?pendant adj. and n., properly pr. pple. of d?pendre to depend. From the 18th c. often (like the adj.) spelt dependent, after L. (both forms being entered by Johnson); but the spelling -ant still predominates in the n.: cf. defendant, assistant.

1755 Johnson Pref. to Dict., Some words, such as dependant, dependent; dependance, dependence, vary their final syllable, as one or another language is present to the writer.]

The Oatmeal has a page on common misspellings (inevitably it is part of its Grammar Pack, which also includes others on the use of: literally, i.e., semicolons and apostrophes, none of which are to do with grammar). It has lose and loose; weird (an exception to the ?i before after e except after c? rule); there/their/they?re, your/you?re and its/it?s, where the apostrophes stand for missing letters; definitely (not *definately); affect/effect; weather/whether (whether is a wh- question word, admittedly for indirect questions, in the same class as where, why, when etc.); a lot (not *alot) and finally then/than. The last one surprises me as there is a clear pronunciation difference. The mistake that I hear often from non-native speakers, Spanish ones anyway, is that for than due to L1 interference and the relative infrequency of than.

The ones of particular interest here are those that might become accepted as standard usage. The compounding of words is a feature of English so it seems to me the currently non-standard *alot might well become acceptable. After all, the noun meaning of lot has been lost and the word (with of) is a mere synonym of much/many. There is no fuss about another or cannot being written as one word.

I have a feeling that *definately will always be with us but will not become acceptable. The association with infinite is close. I also think it improbable that any of the others will be accepted but the case of affect and effect is interesting. I saw affect used for effect recently in a British newspaper but unfortunately failed to note the reference. I suppose that the similar, though not identical, pronunciation and the connection in meaning (something that affects something has an effect on it) might lead to confusion such as exists with enquire/inquiry and inquire/inquiry, with the COED listing the inqu- forms merely as other terms for enqu-. In fact the COED has a usage note under affect:

Affect and effect are commonly confused. Affect is primarily a verb meaning ?make a difference to?. Effect is used both as a noun and a verb, meaning ?a result? or ?bring about (a result)?.

If words are commonly confused they are unlikely to be separated again. The descriptivist author of a usage guide can merely state the situation and let readers decide for themselves. In A Guide to English Language Usage I write:

Affect /@"fekt/ is a verb.

Effect /I"fekt/ is a noun. If one thing affects another, it has an effect on it. Effect is also a verb meaning to bring about, cause to happen: They effected a rapid escape; The company has plans to effect great changes.

Although the two words are pronounced differently, the similarity leads to confusion. Perhaps for this reason, the verbal use of effect is not very common. Another verbal form is to put something into effect.

To return to a point I made earlier, I also write:

In British English practice is the noun and practise is the verb. The noun practice gives the adjective practical. This difference can be remembered with reference to advice and advise, where the spelling reflects the pronunciation. In many cases, however, this distinction is not observed.

In American English practice is used for noun and verb.

See advice; licence; prophecy.

My article on split infinitives describes the nature of them and offers some examples of when a split infinitive can avoid ambiguity. It ends with what the reviewer in Modern English Teacher described as a ?sensible conclusion?:

? it must be said that there is still, rightly or wrongly, a considerable feeling among English speakers that a split infinitive is wrong. Sometimes it seems natural to do so but a decision to split an infinitive deliberately should never be taken lightly.

I have always seen A Guide to English Language Usage as an extension of my teaching and I know that students want to know what is right and what is wrong. What more can I say? I quote from the introduction:

Language usage changes over time. This book describes Standard English as it is used by careful native speakers at the time of writing, including some common variant forms. While starting from this descriptive approach, it nevertheless recognises the very natural desire of non-native speakers to have clear guidelines for speaking and writing English in a way that will seem natural to native speakers that they deal with. The question of prescriptive grammar is discussed further in the articles grammar and right and wrong

How can it be claimed that usage guides are necessarily the antithesis of descriptivism? Good usage requires a knowledge not only of the way in which language is used but also of the reaction that can be expected from a certain usage ? and foreign learners of a language have a particular need in that respect.

Source: http://lavengro.typepad.com/peter_harvey_linguist/2013/02/how-to-write-a-descriptivist-usage-guide.html

johnny depp hayden panettiere raul ibanez completely wrong mila kunis stacey dash christopher columbus

কোন মন্তব্য নেই:

একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন