Mulroy & the Greeks

In response to the question about Mulroy and the Greeks, I read that Mulroy says that the Greeks came up with a revolutionary method of writing, that shaped the way we think about writing and our present-day writing styles. The idea for the Greek alphabet apparently originated with the Phoenicians, who were the inhabitants of what is now Lebanon, and were at the fore of international trade and navigation during the dark ages. Because of the early Greek alphabet, we are blessed with the Latin alphabet, which we use, and the Cyrillic alphabet, used more commonly by the Slavic peoples, like Russia and the Czech Republic. Some of his contemporaries would say that the Greeks mostly communicated orally, and really had no need for a written language. However, Mulroy says that the written language served as a 'tipping point,' and led to the great advances we now have. I agree with Mulroy, and do not think that the world would be what it is today without the Greeks, and their strides in advancing language and knowledge.

Steve Martin in one of his best roles

SWE: Do we need it?

Well, if it were not for the institute of Standard Written English, I do not think many people would know how to communicate the way we need to in this modern world. I mean, how silly would it seem if a sentence were phrased like, "I seen them walking, and I ain't sure, but thinks I seen him murderize her life." Some of the preceding sentence is used in common lingo, either to just be playful and silly, or because we do not always talk as we write, and we cannot be anal with our word-usage at all times. Then we would be teachers. Oops! I kid, I kid, because even teachers do not necessarily talk as they would have us write.

The question now is: if SWE is a good idea, then how do we go about teaching it? I say that there should be an equal mix of theory and practice, live and let learn. Perhaps the instruction would begin at a young age, and the pupil would be guided firmly yet kindly, not dashing the hopes of the child, nor coddling them, because both of those alternatives do not lead to anything fruitful. As the instruction progressed, and the child got older and more learned in the ways of SWE, they would be guided to put their knowledge to practical use, such as tutoring the younger ages in the ways. Kinda like Jedis and their Padawans.

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.