Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Shilling for Big Read
"Big Read" is an NEA initiative that promises to "restore reading to the center of American culture." Over at the LA Times, reason contributor Jim Henley shares some thoughts with the few who can still interpret printed characters:
The NEA knows that reading has slipped because of its own survey from 2004, "Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America,” and a 2007 follow-up, "To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence." The reports find 20-year declines in what the NEA calls "literary reading" among all demographic categories. It defines "literary reading" generously: "any novels, short stories, poetry or plays" -- anything fictional or poetic. "Executioner" novels count as much as "The Corrections"; Dan Brown no less than Tony Kushner. "Reading at Risk" concluded that fewer than half of all Americans read stories or poems for pleasure in 2002.
I feel bittersweet about this myself. I'm writing a novel. I've published poems. Nothing feels quite so discomfiting to me as walking into someone's home and realizing that there is not a single book to be found in it. But nearly everything that was around in 1982 is less central than it used to be: broadcast television, the Big Three automakers, the major record labels. And in the February Harper's, Ursula K. Le Guin suggests the larger pattern: For much of history, hardly anyone read, and even fewer read for pleasure rather than necessity. Then, for a while, many people read. (Le Guin sees "a high point of reading in the United States from around 1850 to about 1950 -- call it the century of the book.") Now fewer do.
Against the long pull of this tide, the NEA's Big Read program looks like mere sentimentality.
Read the whole thing. And then push against the tide by reading one of Henley's poems.
Outsnobber|2.25.08 @ 6:12PM|#
"Executioner" novels count as much as "The
Corrections"
Not so. Anything that isn't The Corrections counts
double.
Plant Immigration Rights Assoc|2.25.08 @ 6:14PM|#
This is not the same NEA I assumed it was when I first read the blub. The OTHER NEA (the National Education Association) should look itself in the mirror. By opposing much needed reforms that could improve the quality of education in the United States the National Education Association (again, not the same NEA mentioned in this post) has become part of the problem and not part of the solution. Not all teachers agree with the National Education Association's official position on this and as a son of two teachers I know that there are some good teachers out there. But the leadership of that union has held back education by stalling education reform and protecting some incompetent teachers who make the quality teachers look bad
Nephilium|2.25.08 @ 6:21PM|#
I'm pretty certain that the doom and gloom calls of the
spreading illiteracy is pretty much bunk. Most communication
(especially by the younger generation) is done with text messages
and online chatting, with e-mail a strong contender as well.
The printed word and proper spelling and grammar may be taking some
blows to the chin right now. However, grammar has been beaten like
a red headed stepchild for several generations now, and is still
standing. And with spellcheck software in almost everything,
spelling has a chance.
But... that's just my opinion...
An Honest Question|2.25.08 @ 6:22PM|#
Has anybody here actually read Finnean's Wake? How many languages do you have to be fluent in to read the thing?
Spellchecker|2.25.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Butt if Wii be come to reliant on spellcheckers IT can cause reel problems.
the innominate one|2.25.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Remo Williams, the Destroyer is far superior to Mack Bolan, the
Executioner.
Remo would kick the asses of Zod, Chuck Norris, and Jack Bauer
while giving every woman within a 20 foot radius multiple
orgasms.
Fluffy|2.25.08 @ 6:26PM|#
I wonder why only fiction was considered.
Nonfiction can be read for pleasure. Actually, the vast majority of
it is. If you aren't a professional historian and you read history,
you are reading for pleasure.
I suspect nonfiction has to be excluded to get the "right" outcome.
Because if you don't exclude it, I would assert that all internet
reading counts too. Every pinhead girl sitting at her computer and
reading dlisted.com all day is a nonfiction reader for pleasure,
and if we just count words she probably reads as much as the
average person ever has.
|2.25.08 @ 6:28PM|#
The reports find 20-year declines in what the NEA calls
"literary reading" among all demographic categories.
Perhaps the written word is not the best medium for fictional story
telling.
To judge a populations literacy on what forms of media they choose
to consume fiction story entertainments with is a bit idiotic.
Libertarian Librarian|2.25.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Sometimes people read fiction online too such as
http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/WikiNode
and we must not forget
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
|2.25.08 @ 6:32PM|#
I think only fiction was included because studies that indicate we are now reading more non-fiction than any other time in history would not provide a secondary motivation for public funding of the arts.
|2.25.08 @ 6:37PM|#
And what J.C. said. With Cable, satellite, off-air TV, DVD rentals, on-demand video, downloadable programm, video games, and porn, we have more artistic content and entertainment available today.
|2.25.08 @ 6:37PM|#
However, grammar has been beaten like a red headed stepchild
for several generations now, and is still standing.
Realistically my bet would be on the grammar and punctuation Nazis
of the world have been complaining about this since the written
word was invented.
The more people using the written word the way they want is not
only practical...that is the point of the written word right, to be
used...but benefits the language and its users as a whole.
|2.25.08 @ 6:41PM|#
And with spellcheck software in almost everything, spelling
has a chance.
Your knew a round hear, arndt yew? ;-)
|2.25.08 @ 6:43PM|#
"No single factor caused this problem. No single solution can
solve it. But it cannot be ignored and must be addressed," Gioia
said.
Opps, never mind. I just finished the article and dicovered how
wrong I am. Before reading this I thought there was no problem, no
need for a solution, and we could ignore it / do not have to
address it at all. Next time I'll read RTFA in its entirety before
making an ass of myself.
I hope someone has posted something after my last two post.
Monopolizing a thread with three in a row is only slightly better
than two people firing off 30 posts letting everyone know just how
much they disagree with each other.
|2.25.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Nonfiction can be read for pleasure. Actually, the vast
majority of it is. If you aren't a professional historian and you
read history, you are reading for pleasure.
Emphatically agreed. The same goes for the sciences and
sociology.
the innominate one|2.25.08 @ 6:45PM|#
To judge a populations literacy on what forms of media they
choose to consume fiction story entertainments with is a bit
idiotic.
well, isn't the definition of literacy specific to a medium, namely
reading?
reading on the internet is the same as reading a book, so, good
point, Libertarian Librarian
reading might be considered to be preferable over other forms of
media/ entertainment because it's more active. watching TV or
movies is typically a fairly passive activity, though it depends on
what you're watching.
|2.25.08 @ 6:46PM|#
And with spellcheck software in almost everything, spelling
has a chance.
I am looking forward to the day in which Drudge can automatically
be translated into L337 speak.
"0Bomb LOLPWNS CLITBTCH @ Tex primaries"
|2.25.08 @ 6:51PM|#
reading might be considered to be preferable over other
forms of media/ entertainment because it's more active.
Huh?
How is reading what someone else wrote in linear fashion as it was
intended more active then inventing a game of how many Hookers can
you kill in under a min on GTA4?
Libertarian Librarian|2.25.08 @ 6:54PM|#
One could even argue that one is MORE literate if one is reading nonfiction. If you read fiction it is possible on is learning primarily about a fictional world. Knowing the difference between an ogre and an ork might be neat but it has little practicle value. If one is reading a nonfiction book about how to improve one's financial future or get a better job it certainly can have practical value.
the innominate one|2.25.08 @ 6:54PM|#
The more people using the written word the way they want is
not only practical...that is the point of the written word right,
to be used...
The point of both written and spoken language is to be used to
communicate. Written language also had the benefit over spoken
language of being stored information prior to the invention of
audio recording technology. If you are using language
idiosyncratically in such a way that your meaning is unclear, then
that's a problem with using language "the way they want."
the innominate one|2.25.08 @ 6:59PM|#
How is reading what someone else wrote in linear fashion as
it was intended more active then inventing a game of how many
Hookers can you kill in under a min on GTA4?
I didn't say it was, that's not the comparison I made. I compared
reading to watching TV and movies, not creating games.
When I read nonfiction, Lord of the Rings, for example, I visualize
what's happening in the book in my mind, like creating my own movie
in my head. That's active.
Watching the movies of the Lord of the Rings is more passive. The
visuals are presented to you, and you receive and process the
information, but don't have to translate written language into its
meaning.
Nephilium|2.25.08 @ 7:00PM|#
joshua corning:
http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/
Choose "Hacker". Be happy.
And J sub D:
n0, 1'v3 |333n |-|3r3 4 a whi13... (Stupid thing doesn't like
backslashes... and I'm too much in lazy hobo mode to clean it up
more.)
When communicating with 13 year olds, being able to out 1337 speak
them is an advantage, and leads to the 1337 speak being dropped
quickly... :)
Nephilium
|2.25.08 @ 7:02PM|#
If you are using language idiosyncratically in such a way
that your meaning is unclear, then that's a problem with using
language "the way they want."
YA cuz writing with the intent to deceive or to code your
communications is such a huge f'ing sin to history...as well as
impossible to do if proper grammar and punctuation is used.
|2.25.08 @ 7:05PM|#
Most of what's done on the internet is reading. Radio took away
from books, TV took away from radio, the internet takes away from
TV, so we ended up back at reading. Granted, it's not books, but I
honestly don't see why reading the Da Vinci Code has any greater
value than reading Reason on or offline.
Reading for the sake of reading is kind of pointless. What's more
important is to read for what informs and interests you, so whether
it's books, magazines, articles, poetry or whatever, it's all
good.
GILMORE|2.25.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Perhaps must learn to EMBRACE the new modes of discourse
One need not look far for signs of freewheeling literary
experimentation and innovation amongst our younger generations -
academy-certified "literarture" be damned!
e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4YRhrDod9Q
"pisot13 (10 minutes ago)
stupid ass shit thats wat u get homie
posser
FUCK U
rofl
lmao
lmfao
lol
BrutallyBree (1 day ago)
OMG DUDE THATS EFFiN HiLLARiUS
wowcrippy (3 days ago)
i think that was stagged
flskimskatesurf (2 days ago)
if you werent fucking dumb you'd realize dumb ass is two words,
dumb ass.
Fagget88 (2 weeks ago)
XD omg the is XD
700016597 (3 weeks ago)
A hard core comment,
That shitbox worth NOTHING!
Be greatful someone took that.
Yours truly
Philosopher Mac
fuckjayandjohn (4 weeks ago)
first off y wuld the be in a rich neighborhood, with that shitty
car? second off y wuld a gang banger be waltzin through that
neighborhood? finally, that guy is the biggest wigger ever
xpistolwhipx (1 month ago)
A: I bet your white so... lol
B: The stupid nigger doesn't realise HE's ON CAMERA so if this is
real that niggers going to jail because they have evidence that
some nigger was dumb enough to steal a vehicle that was being
filmed
and C: Your white, this is probley fake, and you are retarded for
saying such vulgar against white men because we say things about
black men and its oh fucking racist but when you say stuff about us
its "cool" I think its "fucking retarded" jackass
Slimguy1676 (3 months ago)
AHHHHHH good 4 yo ass. think about stuff be4 ghostridin yuh(now
gone)whip. xD sum1 had to shut u up, makin random noise wit no
music sounds wierd
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.25.08 @ 7:09PM|#
"The point of both written and spoken language is to be used to
communicate. Written language also had the benefit over spoken
language of being stored information prior to the invention of
audio recording technology. If you are using language
idiosyncratically in such a way that your meaning is unclear, then
that's a problem with using language "the way they want.""
I agree, this is one of the problems I have with so-called modern
art. If noone but the artist knows the meaning of a work - that
artist is not communicating.
|2.25.08 @ 7:11PM|#
When I read nonfiction, Lord of the Rings, for example, I
visualize what's happening in the book in my mind, like creating my
own movie in my head. That's active.
Watching the movies of the Lord of the Rings is more passive. The
visuals are presented to you, and you receive and process the
information, but don't have to translate written language into its
meaning.
Only problem being that any neurologist will tell you that when
"passively" proccessing a movie your brain is more active then when
that same brain is reading a book.
I didn't say it was, that's not the comparison I made. I
compared reading to watching TV and movies, not creating
games.
What ever you meant to write is not in your text..."other forms of
media/ entertainment" is what you wrote. Grand Theft Auto 4 is a
media entertainment that allows the user to choose what activity in
its non-liniar story she wishes to participate in which is very
unlike the written word and a far more "active" form of media.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.25.08 @ 7:14PM|#
"Radio took away from books, TV took away from radio, the
internet takes away from TV, so we ended up back at reading."
Now podcasting is taking away what is left of radio. For a while AM
radio was kind of interesting - then it got formulaic. Now
podcasting is enabling niche audiences. Topics that would not have
a large enough market share in a particular city have a large
enough audience to survive because anyone who has an internet
connection and can understand that particular language is your
potential audience.
the innominate one|2.25.08 @ 7:18PM|#
joshua, you wrote: What ever you meant to write is not in your
text..."other forms of media/ entertainment" is what you
wrote.
I wrote: watching TV or movies is typically a
fairly passive activity, though it depends on what you're
watching.
GILMORE|2.25.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Libertarian Librarian | February 25, 2008
One could even argue that one is MORE literate if one is reading
nonfiction. If you read fiction it is possible on is learning
primarily about a fictional world.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your
newsletter.
Knowing the difference between an ogre and an ork might be neat
but it has little practicle value.
Arrrg! The wasted years! The foolish assumption that these details
would provide useful aid in cave-exploring!! Would that you had
intervened but sooner!
Lies! Lies! All of them lies!
(throws Alice in Wonderland in the fire)
Useless tripe!!...
(tears Candide to shreads)
...and you made me think pigs could talk!!!
(Animal Farm goes out the window)
...Dont even get me started, Eugene Ionesco...IF THAT *IS* YOUR
REAL NAME!!!!
(whole shelf toppled over)
...this all clearly explains my lack of material success! My empty
world! My inability to Win Friends And Influence People!!! Where oh
where were you when I needed *you*, Dale Carnegie!!!!!!
(suddenly, over the weeping of our hero, an ancient and wise voice
speaks out...)
"Gilmore..... GILMORE....that time when there was only one set of
footprints.... THAT WAS WHEN I CARRIED YOU"
GILMORE|2.25.08 @ 7:30PM|#
damn, misspelling shit really takes some of the wind out of my
whole rhetorical steez.
hoist by mine own petard. Or, as kids would say, "dood, lol, I
totaly got pwned like gayzorz"
Practicing Grammarian|2.25.08 @ 7:34PM|#
If you are using language idiosyncratically in such a way
that your meaning is unclear, then that's a problem with using
language "the way they want."
But of course what the Grammar Nazis object to is actually language
that everybody except them uses. It just happens to be different
from the way the Grammar Nazis want us to talk. Their proscribed
'bad grammar' doesn't impede communication at all--it only annoys
the (misinformed) purists. Splitting infinitives and saying
'irregardless' is perfectly meaningful and not in the least
unclear. Just frowned upon. Like wearing white before Memorial
Day.
As long as we recognize that most of what the Grammar Mavens are
enforcing is simply the imposition of their taste (and unsupported
by facts of history or usage), they should be free to tut-tut to
their heart's content.
Neu Mejican|2.25.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Irrespective of your opinion, using irregardless communicates clearly that you are not from the educated classes who have agreed that only the uneducated practice that particular usage. It shares status with ain't in that respect. A real word, for sure, but one with metalinguistic overtones more prominent than others.
EVIL DR KLAHN and GILMORE|2.25.08 @ 7:47PM|#
Practicing Grammarian | February 25, 2008, 7:34pm |
#
SEND THIS MAN TO DETROIT!!!
Oh... shit... wait.
EVIL ARMY! *KEEP* THIS MAN IN DETROIT!!!!
[interjection by GILMORE]
Is it a surprise that linguistics professors (or worse =
COMMUNICATION STUDIES!!) write the most absolutely unreadable shit
in the world?
I summon the ghosts of Alexander Pope, Samuel Johnson, Oliver
Goldsmith, to haunt you until you renounce your heresy.
Then, Dickens will come and slap you silly. Just for fun.
|2.25.08 @ 8:08PM|#
Here's a thought for nothing: The only grammar nazis who are
going to matter, in the long run, aren't the ones who flunked you
in high school, but the ones in human resources reading the cover
letter to your resume. Grammar takes a beating and continues to
matter because being able to express yourself clearly and
unambiguously continues to matter.
As for the bias toward fiction as a measure of reading, I believe
it is more demanding mentally and what, empathetically(?), to read
fiction. It takes you to an inner world other media can't approach
in the same detailed way. Does it matter that people aren't reading
fiction? Probably not. Today's internet information and
entertainment consumer is going to get his glimpse of the inner
human world by whatever medium he favors. Video games, though I
don't enjoy playing them, seem most ripe for developing an original
angle on exploring the inner world.
Dug
|2.25.08 @ 8:16PM|#
Wow, look, I called them video games. Okay, that dates me. Computer games, especially the multi-player format. That's what I meant.
Practicing Grammarian|2.25.08 @ 9:46PM|#
Irrespective of your opinion, using irregardless
communicates clearly that you are not from the educated classes who
have agreed that only the uneducated practice that particular
usage. It shares status with ain't in that respect. A real word,
for sure, but one with metalinguistic overtones more prominent than
others.
Exactly. Objections to the word are sociological
statements of prejudices, not logical, mathematical or scientific
ones. But Grammar Mavens treat them as if they were somehow handed
down from God, rather than accumulated prejudices based on a series
of historical accidents.
Also, (for THE EVIL DOCTOR KLAHN..) don't confuse me with
Chomsky--some linguists (Pinker, Lakoff) write very readably. For
that matter, so do I--feel free to read my articles on my website,
although I should warn you that they're rather technical.
And don't confuse me with 'Communications' types either--I actually
know something about how language works. /snark
GILMORE|2.25.08 @ 10:08PM|#
"Pinker, Lakoff"
I've read both. I had to. Not a fan. In fact, more of an sworn
arch-enemy. Reason actually profiled Lakoff on this blog not too
long ago. Ok, maybe 2-3 years ago. There's some intereting
commentary. To the tune of, "who the fuck is this moron?"
to wit
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33976.html
and
https://www.reason.com/news/show/32021.html
fwiw, i was already predisposed to consider him a schmoo before i'd
ever seen these. ooooh. BIAS. Bias, baaaaaaad.
I happen to be one of these types that thinks most of what we need
to know was written by greeks a couple thousand years ago. And I
despise most acedemics by instinct, if not for any other legitimate
reason. It's nothing personal. They made me read to much really
really shitty stuff. It hurt. It's like McCain and Torturers and
stuff. dont say "lacan or derrida" or i start screaming "CLEANING
LADY!!CLEANING LADY!!" and strangle the nearest person.*
(*"dead men dont wear plaid" reference)
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.25.08 @ 10:35PM|#
Somebody had to say something in this goddamn thread that would
cause me to yell "DRINK!"
Consider it yelled.
I gotta prove a theorem drunk!
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.25.08 @ 10:41PM|#
Where are you fuckers...am I drinking alone? Isn't that a sign
of a problem?
Come on, dudes, it's Monday night ... oh wait ...
Fuck.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.25.08 @ 10:44PM|#
Sorry for the language if that's a problem on this goddamn
blog!
Blasphemy doesn't count as bad language!
I just caught three spelling errors in those sentences! Four!
|2.25.08 @ 11:28PM|#
Reading is an exercise program for the mind. Whether the
activity is fiction or nonfiction is not particularly important, as
either allows the reader to sharpen powers of observation,
inference and prediction, increase the ability to communicate more
precisely, and explore new ideas in a safer and less judgemental
arena than in real life. Books demand active interpretation, yet
allow one freedom to mentally follow the occasional wild goose and
return without substantially altering the flow of
understanding.
Generally, people do seem to read less for pleasure than twenty
years ago, but I still have many friends who have one or two books
going constantly (as do I).
My biggest problem is becoming lack of space. I find myself unable
to part with most of my books, and find myself planning to buy a
new home just to have room.
Keep reading. There's always something new to ponder.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.25.08 @ 11:35PM|#
JsubD:
Nonfiction can be read for pleasure. Actually, the vast majority of it is. If you aren't a professional historian and you read history, you are reading for pleasure.
Emphatically agreed. The same goes for the sciences and sociology.
Porn too? I realize some of it is fiction, but some of those
"Penthouse Letters"™
seem so real...
Am I dating myself?
Even
better.
GILMORE|2.25.08 @ 11:40PM|#
...accumulated prejudices based on a series of historical
accidents.
Sure.
Which the normal, non-acedemic person uses the term, "good"
for.
'Elements of Style' never did much for people who can't write at
all in the first place. And no linguist ever taught anyone how to
write better.
Accumulated Predjudices are useful.
I dont remember who said it, and maybe it was just a throwaway
comment from some professor, but someone once said, "if you cant
articulate it specifically, you arent actually thinking it".
You might argue that the quality of 'articulation' is clearly
relative to the audience. OK. Or, one could point out that the
average audience is generally pretty fucking stupid and needs to be
spoonfed. some people simply can't read montaigne, say, and there's
no real way to 'translate' the stuff apart from his form.
If you can't read a variety of modes, then you cant think in a
variety of modes, which essentially makes you an intellectual
cripple.
Which is what i think most liberal arts programs have been doing
for the last 25 or so years.
I'm a fan of Allan Bloom, as it happens. Neither here nor there.
Just connected thought from the above.
Ever read Gertrude Steins' "How To Write"? If she were alive... Oh,
I would kill her with my bare hands. I bet that shit gave a few
dozen acedemics tenure.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.25.08 @ 11:59PM|#
GILMORE, are you drinking too?
...or just smoking pot?
|2.26.08 @ 12:14AM|#
Those who focus on consistent grammatical correctness are rarely as much fun to read as the those who focus on effective communication.
GILMORE|2.26.08 @ 12:15AM|#
Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | February 25,
2008, 11:59pm | #
GILMORE, are you drinking too?
...or just smoking pot?
I resent the suggestion.
Well, Ok. Yeah, couple of Grolsch lagers. Otherwise the headaches
take over and im not as personable.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.26.08 @ 12:24AM|#
I am drinking some combination of a Sam Adams mix pack and
Sierra Nevada Pale Ales. And the fucking proof isn't coming.
Erdős said a mathematician is a machine that turns beer into
theorems...oh, it was coffee into theorems. I've been taking the
wrong drug for the result I want.
Einstein had a quote that was relevant here.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.26.08 @ 12:26AM|#
I tell ya the double acute accent is a pain in the ass to look
up when you're drunk.
So is editing.
Ask not for whom the bell toll|2.26.08 @ 12:56AM|#
A failure to use standard English demonstrates that you are
uneducated, wish to be perceived as uneducated, or are too lazy to
take action to avoid giving such an impression.
The wonderful thing about people who go out of their way to point
out that standard English is arbitrary is that they are advertising
they do not fall into the first group due to accident of personal
circumstances. Accordingly, they fall into the classes where one
can feel fully justified in one's scorn for them. They have chosen
the (appearance of) ignorance; let them feel the consequences of
their choice.
GILMORE|2.26.08 @ 1:31AM|#
Practicing Grammarian | February 25, 2008, 9:46pm | #
I read some of your chapter from the oxford handbook. I gave up
around pg 10
Interesting, and for the subject matter, not painfully written.
(sorry for faint praise - it wasnt best reading material before
bed)
Im not sure i held the whole picture together throughout. But i
think i grasped the basic ideas about the difference between
arbitrary signifiers, and biologically determinate or congnitively
entrenched code phonemes or whatever.
Im probably butchering whatever the topic was. Forgive.
Anyhoo. You ever read that harvard lecture series that Leonard
Bernstein gave? He seemed to make an argument for biological basis
for connections between sounds and meanings... connecting the
"nanny nanny poo poo" sounds that kids make around the world to the
5 tone scale. Or something like that. I get that easier because I
have some musical training. Basically, that some sound-meaning
units are biological. I dont know if any of that has the slightest
connection to your work but it was something that came to
mind.
I've noticed that musicians tend to be pretty good public speakers.
The intuitive grasp of how tone and rhythm or articulation affect
meaning translates to effective public speaking in some
cases.
Southern preachers have a thing going on here too. Now *theres* a
linguistics PhD thesis waiting to happen. Or most likely, already
has 5x over, ad nauseum.
GILMORE|2.26.08 @ 1:38AM|#
this is what i was referring to
http://www.leonardbernstein.com/studio/element.asp?FeatID=7&AssetID=24
maybe not the best reference. They say he was basing some of his
ideas off chomsky. But then, who's to blame him, given the time he
did it.
|2.26.08 @ 2:50AM|#
The wonderful thing about people who go out of their way to
point out that standard English is arbitrary is that they are
advertising they do not fall into the first group due to accident
of personal circumstances.
Wow england must suck...I like it here where class is determined by
how much money you have.
|2.26.08 @ 6:29AM|#
English is a tremendously flexible language capable of conveying very precise, delicate shades of meaning. Unfortunately, most people don't know it well enough to take advantage of its virtues, and the internet is hardly an advertisement to the contrary. This state of affairs should be cause for telling the English teachers to get the lead out, not for saying 'Eh, fuck it, let's go kill some pixellated hookers.' (Or better yet, do both.)
|2.26.08 @ 7:58AM|#
"Irrespective of your opinion, using irregardless communicates
clearly that you are not from the educated classes who have agreed
that only the uneducated practice that particular usage. It shares
status with ain't in that respect. A real word, for sure, but one
with metalinguistic overtones more prominent than others."
Shouldn't that be "sociolinguistic"?
My father has a master's in history from an Ivy League school. I
believe I've heard him say "irregardless." I think only the snooty
educated with large utensils up their arses would rule someone
uneducated who used "irregardless."
|2.26.08 @ 8:30AM|#
Maybe I am busy reading technical manuals instead of poems. Usually your poem types never read technical data and vice versa. Doesn't mean people aren't reading because sales of Poe and Pound are lacking.
Taktix®|2.26.08 @ 9:29AM|#
My father has a master's in history from an Ivy League
school. I believe I've heard him say "irregardless." I think only
the snooty educated with large utensils up their arses would rule
someone uneducated who used "irregardless."
Depends, is it in the Scrabble dictionary? That's the front line of
acceptable vernacular.
Fluffy|2.26.08 @ 9:31AM|#
I will poke back in here to say a word in defense of the grammar
Nazis:
Some of the rules that seem arbitrary when you're breaching them
will seem less so when you make an effort to obey them.
If as an experiment you decided to eliminate all the split
infinitives you use, and to absolutely stop ending sentences with
prepositions no matter how inconvenient it seems, and to obey all
the other silly little rules, you would probably be shocked at the
sentences you'd produce.
All at once a certain percentage of what you wrote would start to
sound like a letter written during the Civil War. How did
semiliterate parochial farm boys all write letters like that? Ken
Burns knows the answer: they forced themselves to obey arbitrary
grammatical rules.
Taktix®|2.26.08 @ 9:38AM|#
All at once a certain percentage of what you wrote would
start to sound like a letter written during the Civil War. How did
semiliterate parochial farm boys all write letters like that? Ken
Burns knows the answer: they forced themselves to obey arbitrary
grammatical rules.
Well, when your spare time is consumed by either:
1) Reading grammar books, or
2) Fucking sheep...
|2.26.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Written language also had the benefit over spoken language
of being stored information prior to the invention of audio
recording technology.
In addition, you can't talk as fast as I can comprehend the written
word. I purchased a book on tape for drive time once. Thirty
minutes later, it was roadside litter. The time advantages of
reading over listening are considerable.
Russ Twenty Hundred|2.26.08 @ 10:28AM|#
I can read well enough to deduce that reading has plummeted since the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts.
|2.26.08 @ 10:32AM|#
All at once a certain percentage of what you wrote would
start to sound like a letter written during the Civil War. How did
semiliterate parochial farm boys all write letters like
that?
My pet theory on that topic: many of them learned to read using the
King James Bible as their textbook.
Practicing Grammarian|2.26.08 @ 10:45AM|#
If as an experiment you decided to eliminate all the split
infinitives you use, and to absolutely stop ending sentences with
prepositions no matter how inconvenient it seems, and to obey all
the other silly little rules, you would probably be shocked at the
sentences you'd produce.
Since most of these rules were invented out of whole cloth by
schoolteachers in the eighteenth century, based on nothing but
arbitrary prejudices, and contrary to the entire previous history
of the language), it's astounding that anyone still pays attention
to them. Certainly Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Winston Churchill and
other great writers violated all these rules, and we still read
them. Yet others (Bishop Lowth, for example, who invented the
'don't end a sentence with a preposition' rule), are only read by
historians of linguistics.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying you can talk, or write, 'any way
you want'. You are projecting an image when you speak or write. I'm
just saying that many (but not all) of these rules have weird
histories that do not allow them to be defended on logical or moral
grounds. I don't wear a bathing suit to the symphony, nor do I wear
tails to a rock concert, but you can't convince me that there is
something rational about the length of my jacket tail that
just makes me a better dresser.
Further to a question above, yes, some musicians do have a feel for
spoken language rhythms. And yes, Bernstein was one of them. I'm
not against esthetics in language, I'm against moralizing about
tiny irrational grammatical points that many insist on treating as
linguistic 'gotchas'.
|2.26.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Some English grammar rules are just written down and codefied
usage patterns. Others are based on dead classical Romance
languages not related to English, a Germanic tongue. English only
borrowed lots of words from the Romance languages. So it's just
kind of silly to insist that English stick to rules that are
derived from other languages. Grammar is just patterns of speech,
that's it.
Of course, when you go to write, there are all kinds of "style"
rules. Those are just as arbitrary though some seem reasonable. But
let's not confuse grammar with style.
Neu Mejican|2.26.08 @ 11:21AM|#
metalinguistic overtones more prominent than others."
Shouldn't that be "sociolinguistic"?
My father has a master's in history from an Ivy League school. I
believe I've heard him say "irregardless."
"Sociolinguistic" is a fine term as well (more restrictive* than
mine,but...)
Btw, the unacceptable sheen of "irregardless" adheres primarily to
its written form. I bet your father never used it in a piece of
formal writing.
*Re: metalinguistic-
meta = Beyond; transcending; more comprehensive
irregardless is in most dictio|2.26.08 @ 11:25AM|#
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless
Neu Mejican|2.26.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Len Talmy-
http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/talmy/talmyweb/index.html
Not an example of a reader friendly linguist, but a deep thinker,
imho.
Shakes Peers|2.26.08 @ 11:48AM|#
To artfully split an infinitive or to write a clunky sentence. That is the question
Practicing Grammarian|2.26.08 @ 3:07PM|#
I think Talmy's work is terrific, but he's also a friend of mine--spent time with him last summer at a conference in Krakow. He is a terrible public speaker, however.
Practicing Grammarian|2.26.08 @ 3:11PM|#
To artfully split an infinitive or to write a clunky
sentence. That is the question
For example, there is no way to rewrite the following:
We expect trade to more than double next year.
*We expect trade more than to double next year.
*?We expect trade to double more than next year.
(asterisks represent standard linguistic notation for impossible
sentences--additional stigmata such as question marks may be used
for REALLY bad stuff)
Neu Mejican|2.26.08 @ 7:06PM|#
For example, there is no way to rewrite the following:
We expect trade to more than double next year.
*We expect trade more than to double next year.
*?We expect trade to double more than next year.
Never say never.
"We expect more than twice as much trade next year."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245