Mulroy on Pinker

The passage starts out talking about how "the study of grammar helps us to understand the great literature of the past and to speak and write eloquently." Mulroy moves on to give us the reader a look at how he gathers his information, or the sources he uses on the internet, rather, and how such wide distances for intelligible information would not have been commonplace in Medieval Europe. Later, when we get to the real meat of the passage, his take on Pinker, he begins by saying that Pinker is "generally unimpressed by the phenomenon of standardized languages." Uh-oh, I smell a debate a-brewing!

After this, Mulroy says where he disagrees with Pinker, and utilizes other thinkers like Lowth to back him up in his assertions. Overall, I finally am beginning to see how wide the schism truly is between all the great minds when it comes to an issue like this.

Video

This is just something I wanted to share with all of you.

Pinker

Pinker begins by saying that humans are unique in how we communicate, because nothing else in the known world has the power of speech, and how scientists believe this is improbable. He goes on to question how one can reconcile this, the rules that may or may not be required. He continues on by giving a brief history of how language mavenism began. I was quite fascinated with his arguments, and how much more clear his message was conveyed than the other 'authorities' we have read so far this semester. Unfortunately, one of those people, David Foster Wallace, took his life over the weekend. I blame myself for backing up one of our classmates in saying he was giving one of his contemporaries intellectual fellatio. Now, I obviously am not ACTUALLY to blame, but still, the speaking ill of the dead thing.

Mulroy interview

When asked about her take on whether or not literal meaning has fallen
into disfavor and disarray in the academic community, Professor Rothrock
suggested that it was more of a case of evolution rather than disarray.
According to her, language is an organic, living thing, and that those
who say it has fallen into disfavor employ the rhetorical situation
in a different way than she does. Genuine voice is hindered by rigidity of application, as well as traditional, historical constraints in the absence of the audience and purpose of each communication situation.
Language itself has evolved to fit the audience of the situation it is
used in. However, rigidity is sometimes required, if the situation calls
for it. Literal meaning is too confining, and the English language and its grammars need to be able to change shape.

When asked if it was possible to fix the literal meaning using a
textbook or other implements, she said that it needed to be taught in a
rhetorical sense , with a focus on audience and purpose dictating the style,
not in the isolation of a classroom, with all the established rules as the only guide. Language loses power if it is used too literally. Much like politics, it can be seen as tyrannical if the rules are adhered to with such fervor. Language needs to therefore be flexible with each application. She goes on to state that the rules should be learned, and properly applied, but we should be wary of purist views, since language is the tool for communication that people use, and people are likewise organic and evolving.

Beason

This reading assignment dealt with Larry Beason, and his explanation of what it meant to be 'bothered' by errors. The piece started off explaining the practice of following rules and regulations of the English language, and, one would suppose, grammar as an extension. According to the article, errors are bad because they interfere with the natural flow of communication. I personally am to the point of thinking that we should cover more hands-on work with grammar, rather than these wordy explanations of why we are wrong, with no ACTUAL explanation. Prepositions and clauses are still not my area of expertise, and I wish we could cover it in class, as well as being responsible for the material in our books.

Tense Present, take two

Well, the last time I wrote about this article, it was not as in-depth as it should have been. I liked the article because the writer knew what he was talking about. The course of modern language has shifted quite a bit, and we do not know where we stand anymore. However, as one of our fellow classmates pointed out, the writer is about as brown a nose as can be possible. He was preachy, and apparently did not want to offend, because he was making serious strides in the sucking it up department.

Alt Blog

Just in case you guys are interested, my separate blog is writerfox.blogspot.com. This is where I maintain my writings and such. Drop by and comment on that if you so choose.

Tense Present

This article by a man called Wallace is an in-depth look into what language and its usage means in this day and age. Many words are long since forgotten, and some have been so over-used that they have lost their original meanings, it seems to me. This weekend, my father used a word to describe one of my television shows that I had never heard before. "Falderal" was the word, and it essentially meant nonsense. The point of Wallace's article was driven home unintentionally by someone not even in the class. How interesting this world is sometimes!