Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <dizdar
tam2000.tamu.edu>
Barbara Pearson raises an interesting question when she asks whether "having more distinctions" is always "better". The idea that one of the things "wrong" with "incorrect"/"nonstandard" usage is that it makes fewer distinctions is one of the claims of traditional prescriptivist dogma, and it is used to condemn the neutralization of the _lay_/_lie_ contrast for instance as well as a number of other cases where "standard" English has more distinctions than most other varieties. However, like all the other facets of prescriptivist dogma, this is one is utterly false in general, since there are zillions of distinctions made in oneor another variety of "nonstandard" English, which the prescriptivists do not adopt, e.g., the contrast between _wanna_ and _want to_. nd the same is the case in other languages as well: in those languages where there is a "standard" pronunciation, for example, it is by no means uncommon for some or even all "nonstandard" dialects to have distinctions absent from the "standard". Alexis Manaster RamerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
One anecdote from Mexico- my husband recalls two lower-class people speaking Spanish, and one correcting the other, "Don't say ANSINA, say ASINA"- for what in middle-class SPanish is ASI. The other forms come from an older form of Spanish, but it's funny how one person corrected another whom she considered a little lower on the scale of linguistic propriety. (Both forms are considered sub-standard by middle-class) Margarita HordnMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
I learned the following analogy from someone, probably on LINGUIST, within the last year or two. A linguist is to language(s) as a botanist is to plants, and not as a gardener. The botanist's work, qua scientist, is to find out new and interesting and perhaps useful things about plants. A botanist may also be a gardener -- I bet a lot of them are -- and in that case s/he probably has some personal favorites, and ideas as to which ones go nicely together, and which ones other people think are appropriate for bringing into the house and which ones should stay outdoors, etc. There's no reason why the same individual can't be both a gardener and a botanist, and being a gardener does not impeach one's scientific credentials as a botanist. As a linguist, I believe that all natural languages are created equal, and that usage is a social construction. As a participant in American culture, some innovations and some prescriptivisms rub me the wrong way (e.g. "an historical", "presently" meaning 'now'). The latter does not wreck my scientific impartiality, nor should the former prevent me from recognizing by someone's speech certain probable (!) features of their social background, education, and loyalties. Bob Hoberman rhobermanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueccmail.sunysb.edu