Editor for this issue: <>
> none of >the pets in the house do the same (these latter acquire >Doggerel instead). > > language fail to penetrate the belief systems of our >brothers and sisters of the literary persuasion, especially >those whose posh nursery schools inculcated in them certain >posh dialects of English. > >Lila Gleitman I applaud Lila Gleitman's rejoinder to Safire, and have two comments to add: 1. No one, especially no linguist, should be surprised to see their words processed into the opposite of what they really mean by a journalist. In my small experience dealing with the press, who mean well, after all, I find they generally expect us to rubber stamp the popular view of language as standard and invariable and given to us at birth along with our social security numbers. And when we don't give 'em what they want, they take it anyway, using their First Amendment right to misquote or misattribute. Because that's what their readers want, as well, an idea of language as right or wrong, rather than contextualized in any interesting way. 2. As Gleitman demonstrates through the use of the irony and of motherese and doggerel, it is the linguists, not the journalists, who have a "literary persuasion." While I occasionally sympathize with Bill Safire for being one of the more flexible of the usageasters, willing enough to consult with professional linguists (or at least to have his staff consult with us), and he has said kind words about my work from time to time (though he has attacked my publisher, NCTE, for being too liberal on language matters!), he is no litterateur. As someone _with_ literary training, I don't see Nixon's former speechwriter as anything other than a member of the fourth estate, or perhaps even a fifth columnist. Dennis ------ Dennis Baron debaronMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueuiuc.edu Department of English 217-333-2392 University of Illinois fax: 217-333-4321 608 South Wright Street Urbana, Illinois 61801