Prescriptivism essay feedback
View more presentations from steddyss.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Work for Thursday 13th Jan for Year 13 Language
We will be moving on to the next topic soon: Prescriptivism (Issues around the use of Standard English). Do the following tasks for next week to get a head start...
Read the Wikipedia page on Linguistic Prescriptivism and make notes.
Then, look at the following quotes from ch 9 of Bill Bryson’s Mother Tongue and answer the following questions. Write a paragraph on each and use any other info you can find.
1)Why is it absurd to base English grammar on Latin?
2)Explain the problem with ending a sentence with a preposition and splitting the infinitive.
3)What is the difference between a prescriptive or descriptive approach to language?
• Consider the parts of speech. In Latin, the verb has up to 120 inflections. In English it never has more than five (e.g. see, sees, saw, seeing, seen) and often gets by with just three (hit, hits, hitting). [...] According to any textbook, the present tense of the verb drive is drive. Every secondary school pupil knows that. Yet if we say, "I used to drive to work but now I don't", we are clearly using the present tense drive in the past tense sense. Equally if we say, "I will drive you to work tomorrow", we are using it in a future sense. And if we say, "I would drive if I could afford to", we are using it in a conditional sense. In fact, almost the only form of sentence in which we cannot use the present tense form for drive is, yes, the present sense. When we need to indicate an action going on right now, we must use the participal form driving. We don't say, "I drive the car now", but rather, "I'm driving the car now". Not to put too fine a point on it, the labels are largely meaningless.
[p. 125]
________________________________________
• English grammar is so complex and confusing for the one very simple reason that its rules and terminologies are based on Latin -- a language with which it has precious little in common. [...] Making English grammar conform to Latin rules is like asking people to play baseball using the rules of football. It is a patent absurdity. But once this insane notion became established grammarians found themselves having to draw up ever more complicated and circular arguments to accommodate the inconsistencies. As Burchfield notes in The English Language, one authority, F. Th. Visser, found it necessary to devote 200 pages to discussing just one aspect of the present participle. That is as crazy as it is amazing.
[p. 128]
________________________________________
• Consider the curiously persistent notion that sentences should not end with a preposition. The source of the stricture, and several other equally dubious ones, was one Robert Lowth, an eighteenth-century clergyman and amateur grammarian whose A Short Introduction to English Grammar, published in 1762, enjoyed a long and distressingly influential life both in his native England and abroad. It is to Lowth we can trace many a pedant's more treasured notions: the belief that you must say different from rather than different to or different than, the idea that two negatives make a positive, the rule that you must not say "the heaviest of the two objects", but rather, "the heavier", the distinction between shall and will, and the clearly nonsensical belief that between can only apply to two things and among to more than two.
[p. 132-133]
________________________________________
• Until the eighteenth century it was correct to say "you was" if you were referring to one person. It sounds off today, but the logic is impeccable. Was is a singular verb and were a plural one. Why should you take a plural verb when the sense is clearly singular? The answer -- surprise, surprise -- is that Robert Lowth didn't like it. "I'm hurrying, are I not?" is hopelessly ungrammatical, but "I'm hurrying, aren't I?" -- merely a contraction of the same words -- is perfect English. [...] There's no inherent reason why these things should be so. They are not defensible in terms of grammar They are because they are.
Nothing illustrates the scope for prejudice in English better than the issue of a split infinitive. Some people feel ridiculously strongly about it. When the British Conservative politician Jock Bruce-Gardyne was economic secretary to the Treasury in the early 1980s, he returned unread any departmental correspondence containing a split infinitive. (It should perhaps be pointed out that a split infinitive is one in which an adverb comes between to and a verb, as in to quickly look.) I can think of two very good reasons for not splitting an infinitive:
1. Because you feel the rules of English ought to conform to the grammatical precepts of a language that died a thousand years ago.
2. Because you wish to cling to a pointless affectation of usage that is without the support of any recognized authority of the last 200 years, even at the cost of composing sentences that are ambiguous, inelegant, and patently contorted.
[p. 135]
________________________________________
• A perennial argument with dictionary makers is whether they should be prescriptive (that is, whether they should prescribe how language should be used) or descriptive (that is, merely describe how it is used without taking a position). [...] The American Heritage Dictionary, first published in 1969, instituted a panel of distinguished commentators to rule on contentious points of usage, which are discussed, often at some length, in the text. But others have been more equivocal (or prudent or spineless depending on how you view it). The revised Random House Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1987, accepts the looser meanings of most words, though often noting that the newer usage is frowned on "by many" -- a curiously timid approach that acknowledges the existence of expert opinion and yet constantly places it at a distance. [...] It even accepts kudo as a singular -- prompting a reviewer from Time magazine to ask if one instance of pathos should now be a patho.
It's a fine issue. One of the undoubted virtues of English is that it is a fluid and democratic language in which meanings shift and change in response to the pressures of common usage rather than the dictates of committees. It is a natural process that has been going on for centuries. To interfere with that process is arguably both arrogant and futile, since clearly the weight of usage will push new meanings into currency no matter how many authorities hurl themselves into the path of change.
But at the same time, it seems to me, there is a case for resisting change -- at least slapdash change. [...] clarity is generally better served if we agree to observe a distinction between imply and infer, forego and forgo, fortuitous and fortunate, uninterested and disinterested, and many others. As John Ciardi observed, resistance may in the end prove futile, but at least it tests the changes and makes them prove their worth.
Perhaps for our last words on the subject of usage we should turn to the last words of the venerable French grammarian, Dominique Bonhours, who proved on his deathbed that a grammarians work is never done when he gazed at those gathered loyally around him and whispered: "I am about to -- or I am going to -- die; either expression is used."
[p. 136-137]
________________________________________
Read the Wikipedia page on Linguistic Prescriptivism and make notes.
Then, look at the following quotes from ch 9 of Bill Bryson’s Mother Tongue and answer the following questions. Write a paragraph on each and use any other info you can find.
1)Why is it absurd to base English grammar on Latin?
2)Explain the problem with ending a sentence with a preposition and splitting the infinitive.
3)What is the difference between a prescriptive or descriptive approach to language?
• Consider the parts of speech. In Latin, the verb has up to 120 inflections. In English it never has more than five (e.g. see, sees, saw, seeing, seen) and often gets by with just three (hit, hits, hitting). [...] According to any textbook, the present tense of the verb drive is drive. Every secondary school pupil knows that. Yet if we say, "I used to drive to work but now I don't", we are clearly using the present tense drive in the past tense sense. Equally if we say, "I will drive you to work tomorrow", we are using it in a future sense. And if we say, "I would drive if I could afford to", we are using it in a conditional sense. In fact, almost the only form of sentence in which we cannot use the present tense form for drive is, yes, the present sense. When we need to indicate an action going on right now, we must use the participal form driving. We don't say, "I drive the car now", but rather, "I'm driving the car now". Not to put too fine a point on it, the labels are largely meaningless.
[p. 125]
________________________________________
• English grammar is so complex and confusing for the one very simple reason that its rules and terminologies are based on Latin -- a language with which it has precious little in common. [...] Making English grammar conform to Latin rules is like asking people to play baseball using the rules of football. It is a patent absurdity. But once this insane notion became established grammarians found themselves having to draw up ever more complicated and circular arguments to accommodate the inconsistencies. As Burchfield notes in The English Language, one authority, F. Th. Visser, found it necessary to devote 200 pages to discussing just one aspect of the present participle. That is as crazy as it is amazing.
[p. 128]
________________________________________
• Consider the curiously persistent notion that sentences should not end with a preposition. The source of the stricture, and several other equally dubious ones, was one Robert Lowth, an eighteenth-century clergyman and amateur grammarian whose A Short Introduction to English Grammar, published in 1762, enjoyed a long and distressingly influential life both in his native England and abroad. It is to Lowth we can trace many a pedant's more treasured notions: the belief that you must say different from rather than different to or different than, the idea that two negatives make a positive, the rule that you must not say "the heaviest of the two objects", but rather, "the heavier", the distinction between shall and will, and the clearly nonsensical belief that between can only apply to two things and among to more than two.
[p. 132-133]
________________________________________
• Until the eighteenth century it was correct to say "you was" if you were referring to one person. It sounds off today, but the logic is impeccable. Was is a singular verb and were a plural one. Why should you take a plural verb when the sense is clearly singular? The answer -- surprise, surprise -- is that Robert Lowth didn't like it. "I'm hurrying, are I not?" is hopelessly ungrammatical, but "I'm hurrying, aren't I?" -- merely a contraction of the same words -- is perfect English. [...] There's no inherent reason why these things should be so. They are not defensible in terms of grammar They are because they are.
Nothing illustrates the scope for prejudice in English better than the issue of a split infinitive. Some people feel ridiculously strongly about it. When the British Conservative politician Jock Bruce-Gardyne was economic secretary to the Treasury in the early 1980s, he returned unread any departmental correspondence containing a split infinitive. (It should perhaps be pointed out that a split infinitive is one in which an adverb comes between to and a verb, as in to quickly look.) I can think of two very good reasons for not splitting an infinitive:
1. Because you feel the rules of English ought to conform to the grammatical precepts of a language that died a thousand years ago.
2. Because you wish to cling to a pointless affectation of usage that is without the support of any recognized authority of the last 200 years, even at the cost of composing sentences that are ambiguous, inelegant, and patently contorted.
[p. 135]
________________________________________
• A perennial argument with dictionary makers is whether they should be prescriptive (that is, whether they should prescribe how language should be used) or descriptive (that is, merely describe how it is used without taking a position). [...] The American Heritage Dictionary, first published in 1969, instituted a panel of distinguished commentators to rule on contentious points of usage, which are discussed, often at some length, in the text. But others have been more equivocal (or prudent or spineless depending on how you view it). The revised Random House Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1987, accepts the looser meanings of most words, though often noting that the newer usage is frowned on "by many" -- a curiously timid approach that acknowledges the existence of expert opinion and yet constantly places it at a distance. [...] It even accepts kudo as a singular -- prompting a reviewer from Time magazine to ask if one instance of pathos should now be a patho.
It's a fine issue. One of the undoubted virtues of English is that it is a fluid and democratic language in which meanings shift and change in response to the pressures of common usage rather than the dictates of committees. It is a natural process that has been going on for centuries. To interfere with that process is arguably both arrogant and futile, since clearly the weight of usage will push new meanings into currency no matter how many authorities hurl themselves into the path of change.
But at the same time, it seems to me, there is a case for resisting change -- at least slapdash change. [...] clarity is generally better served if we agree to observe a distinction between imply and infer, forego and forgo, fortuitous and fortunate, uninterested and disinterested, and many others. As John Ciardi observed, resistance may in the end prove futile, but at least it tests the changes and makes them prove their worth.
Perhaps for our last words on the subject of usage we should turn to the last words of the venerable French grammarian, Dominique Bonhours, who proved on his deathbed that a grammarians work is never done when he gazed at those gathered loyally around him and whispered: "I am about to -- or I am going to -- die; either expression is used."
[p. 136-137]
________________________________________
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Word Class
Click Menu on the bottom left to view full screen.
Word Class (Technical terms)
View more presentations from steddyss.
Power Point on Analysing Politcal Speeches
Now look at the following sample paper that focuses on Political Speeches. Try writing an answer to 1a and 1b.
1a) Select two examples which represent different key constituents of language. Using these examples identify and analyse the differences between the English used in the period that Text 1 was created and current English.
TEXT 1:The following text is a speech by Queen Elizabeth I delivered at Tilbury to the land forces assembled at Tilbury (Essex) before a battle to repel the anticipated invasion of the Spanish Armada, 1588.
My loving people,
We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general* shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.
Notes:
* Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester; he was the queen's favourite, once rumored to be her lover.
1b) Texts 2 and 3 are both examples of political speeches made during a time of crisis.
Analyse and comment on what these texts show about how changing context can affect the presentation of political speeches.
TEXT 2:The following was delivered by Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, June 4, 1940 during world war two.
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
TEXT 3:The following was delivered by President George W. Bush as his Address to the Nation on September 11, 2001.
Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.
The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong.
A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.
America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.
Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America -- with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.
Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C. to help with local rescue efforts.
Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured, and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks. The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopening for essential personnel tonight, and will be open for business tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business, as well.
The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.
I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance.
America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism. Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me."
This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.
Thank you. Good night, and God bless America.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Year 13 English Language Homework (to do over half-term)
Dear all
Please read and annotate the articles I gave you on legal language, basically picking out the main features.
Then, draw up a list of the main features of both plain and legal. For example:
Plain
Use Active verbs
Legal
Often uses passive verbs
Then (remember you have some weeks to do this!), read and annotate the following Tax document and pick out the key features and examples of Legal Langauge. Write 2 P-E-E paragaraphs on this question: What are the key features of legal language in this text and why do you think they are used?
Part 1
THE CHARGE TO TAX
Income tax
4.-(1) Any provision of the Income Tax Acts requiring, permitting or assuming the deduction of income tax from any amount (otherwise than in pursuance of section 203) or treating income tax as having been deducted from or paid on any amount shall, subject to any provision to the contrary, be construed as referring to deduction or payment of income tax at the basic rate in force of the relevant year of assessment.
2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the relevant year of assessment shall be taken to be (except where otherwise provided) –
a) if the amount is an amount payable wholly out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax, the year in which the amount becomes due;
b) in any other case, the year in which the amount is paid.
From the Taxes Act ‘Income Tax…’
Please read and annotate the articles I gave you on legal language, basically picking out the main features.
Then, go to the wikipedia page on 'Legal English'. Make notes on the historical development and key features.
Then, draw up a list of the main features of both plain and legal. For example:
Plain
Use Active verbs
Legal
Often uses passive verbs
Then (remember you have some weeks to do this!), read and annotate the following Tax document and pick out the key features and examples of Legal Langauge. Write 2 P-E-E paragaraphs on this question: What are the key features of legal language in this text and why do you think they are used?
Part 1
THE CHARGE TO TAX
Income tax
4.-(1) Any provision of the Income Tax Acts requiring, permitting or assuming the deduction of income tax from any amount (otherwise than in pursuance of section 203) or treating income tax as having been deducted from or paid on any amount shall, subject to any provision to the contrary, be construed as referring to deduction or payment of income tax at the basic rate in force of the relevant year of assessment.
2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the relevant year of assessment shall be taken to be (except where otherwise provided) –
a) if the amount is an amount payable wholly out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax, the year in which the amount becomes due;
b) in any other case, the year in which the amount is paid.
From the Taxes Act ‘Income Tax…’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)