Vestergaard, Torben

English

Tidsskrift.dk (Det Kongelige Bibliotek)

Torben Vestergaard*Writing English Grammars for Danes: bridging thegap between prescriptivism and descriptivismLinguistics, for the better part of this century, has had a propensity forthinking in terms of dichotomies; and whereas some of these, such as‘signifiant’ - ‘signifié’ or ‘paradigm’ - ‘syntagm’, serve purely descrip-tive purposes, many others have come to acquire the status of shibbo-leths: surely, real linguists work with ‘synchronie’ rather than ‘dia-chronie’, with ‘form’ rather than ‘substance’, or with ‘competence’rather than ‘performance’. And yet, none of these dichotomies seem tohave aroused so violent emotions as the distinction between ‘descrip-tive’ and ‘prescriptive’, with the battle against ‘prescriptivism’ on thepart of real, ‘scientific linguistics’ arguably reaching its rhetorical cul-mination in Hall’s (1950/1960) book, characteristically entitled Leaveyour Language Alone. It can be argued, however, that in their wholesale rejection of nor-mative attitudes to language, members of the linguistic profession haveturned their backs to an important fact about language communities.For since people will mark their personal identities and define theirgroup allegiances through any behavioural means available, and sinceall languages are used by differing groups of people (even the smallestand most homogeneous speech community will at the very least bedifferentiated into such groups as and older and younger speakers aswell as males and females), it follows that all languages, even thesmallest, will be heterogeneous and variable systems (see e.g. Labov,1972). This places even the most descriptively orientated of scientificlinguists in a dilemma, for with a huge and possible infinite number ofvariants to choose between, he cannot possibly describe everything, nomatter how hard he tries, and, accordingly, he will have to choose one113Hermes, Journal of Linguistics no. 17 - 1996* Torben VestergaardAalborg UniversitetInstitut for sprog og internationale kulturstudierHavrevangen 1DK-9000  Aalborgor a few variants as the basis for his description. But thereby, willy-nilly, he inevitably falls into the quagmire of prescriptivism, as, simplyby virtue of having been selected as the basis for linguistic description,a given variant will be exalted to the status of norm.1In this note I am going to argue that even though grammars ingeneral, and grammars for foreign students in particular, are necessarilyand quite legitimately bound to be normative,2 it is possible and in factnecessary to reconcile the normative and the descriptive approaches.By way of illustration, I will discuss two concrete examples, both fromthe syntax of the English modal verbs.2. Choosing a normAs it is one of the tenets of structural linguistics that no language, andno variant of any one language, is better than others (e.g. Trudgill,1975), it might appear that the question of which variant to aim atwould be a non-issue for the foreign student. However, it is probablytrue of all language communities that there is a variant which membersregard as the most neutral and the most suitable for purposes of wider,public communication. This variant is known as the standard variant,and this is also the variant that native speakers find the most suitable forforeigners, whether they themselves use it or not.A Danish example will illustrate this: an English speaking colleagueof mine, herself a sociolinguist, who lives and works in Denmark wasonce corrected by a group of Danes for using the local pronunciation,[o:ns´], of the name of her city of residence, Odense (standardpronunciation: [o?D´ns´]). When she objected that this was howeveryone else pronounced it, the answer was, ‘Oh, but that’s different:you’re a foreigner.’On top of native speakers’ preference for foreigners using thestandard variant, it is worth noting that all other variants than thestandard will carry connotations about group membership that in the1141 Thus, for instance, the Collins/Cobuild Grammar, this the most descriptive ofdescriptive enterprises, is being advertised as ‘the new authority on the Englishlanguage’.2 I regard ‘normative’ and ‘prescriptive’ as having the same denotative content, and Ishall use them interchangeably, although the latter is certainly burdened with the morenegative connotations. overwhelming majority of cases will be false, almost by definition, aslong as we are talking about foreigners. And finally: for the foreignerembarking on an academic study of the language, the choice is eveneasier, as the standard variant will be the form of the language which ismost commonly employed in all those professional contexts for whichstudents are in the process of acquiring linguistic and culturalcompetence.3It may be in order at this point to note that the standard variant of alanguage is not necessarily the most formal variant. A standardlanguage can be used across the ranges of situations and subjects, fromrituals and ceremonies, sacred and profane, over public debates oncomplex political or academic subjects, to private talks about the mosttrivial everyday matters, and it can abound with swearwords and othertaboo words. In this respect the standard differs from non-standardvariants, since it alone will have been developed for use in the mostformal functions. Moreover, there will be speakers who use thestandard in more formal situations only, but employ a non-standardvariant for everyday purposes, which, of course, is the reason why‘standard’ is often confused with ‘formal’.If we now turn our attention to English and restrict ourselves to themorphological and syntactic levels, it appears that standard English isspoken and written throughout the English speaking world, i.e. GreatBritain, Ireland, North America, southern Africa, Australia and NewZealand, with geographical variations which, from the foreign student’spoint of view, are negligible, although it may be that there are greatermorphological differences, particularly in verb inflection, betweenAmerican and English English than commonly assumed, cf. Preisler,1995. (There are, of course obvious lexical differences reflecting, part-ly, the differing geological, climatic, etc. surroundings, partly the dif-1153 When I am talking about the standard variant, I am referring to a phenomenonexisting on the lexical, syntactic, morphological and phonological levels. On thephonetic level, like all other variants it can be pronounced with various differentaccents, and as far as standard English English is concerned, the accent characteristic ofthe top of the social scale, variously known as ‘RP’, ‘BBC English’, ‘public schoolEnglish’, etc., is hardly the most suitable for foreigners as it carries associations aboutgroup membership which in most cases would be as false as those carried by non-standard dialects.fering sociopolitical histories of the various English speaking coun-tries).4But even if ‘Standard English’ is a relatively unambiguous phenom-enon, there is still a series of choices facing grammar writers, unless,totally unrealistically, they aim at covering everything falling within thecoverage of the term. We have to realize that just as any ‘language’ isinfinitely variable, so any variant of a language, including the standard,is subject to variation and change; and in the special case of grammarsfor foreign students the problem es even more pronounced: as nospeaker, let alone a foreign student, will ever come to master the wholegamut of varieties contained within the variant of the language he aimsat, the grammar writer will have to decide what to include and what toleave out. One possibility, and the only one that can be practised with ahundred per cent consistency, is for the grammarian to restrict himselfto describing only those constructions which he will recommend thathis readers should adopt. Once that principle has been  abandoned, as itwill have to be in any reasonably comprehensive grammar for univer-sity students, it is hard to make principled decisions in each individualinstance. In my own case, for instance (Vestergaard 1985/1993), I state(§ 8.3, note 2) that in modern English, unlike Danish, personal pro-nouns cannot be postmodified by restrictive relative clauses, knowingfull well that in a variant of English that educated speakers can beassumed to be familiar with, viz. the English of Shakespeare’s playsand the King James Bible, the construction is perfectly natural. Andagain, although I mention the phenomenon of ‘preposition stranding’(but not the term) in my discussion of relative pronouns governed byprepositions, and although I point out that the construction is oftenavoided in formal writing (e.g. § 8.47), I do not mention the fact that,regardless of the level of formality, the tendency to avoid the construc-tion is far more pronounced in English than in Danish, where there ishardly any normative pressure against it. Conversely, I do mention that‘left dislocation’, although it exists in English, is considerably lessfrequent than in Danish (§ 10.10, note).1164 The phonological system, of course, differentiates Englsih into two major dialects:rhotic and non-rhotic, and within the former there is a further bifurdcation into dialectswith and without phonological distinctions between long and short vowels.3. Compromising between prescriptivism and descriptivism3.1. ‘shall’ and ‘will’ with future referenceThere are four basic ways of referring to the future in English: the sim-ple present tense, the present progressive, be going to plus infinitive,and modal plus infinitive. The modal employed here is will in all va-rieties of English except formal English English, which differs from allother varieties in using shall plus infinitive in the first person and willin all other persons (Quirk et al. 1972:87):I shall/will talk to them next week.you/he/etc. will talk to them next week.As Quirk et al. state, prescriptive usage has ‘exerted considerableinfluence’ in the direction of shall in English English. Bloomfieldcharacterizes the rule prescribing shall as a  ‘speculative notion’ and‘fanciful dogma’ invented by authorities and authoritarians (1933:7,500), and according to Hall (1960:24) the rule was simply made up bya seventeenth century grammarian, ‘one John Wallis’. That the distinc-tion between shall and will does not seem to come naturally, even tonatives, is further evidenced by the amount of space dedicated to it byguides to ‘good usage’: Partridge (1963) spends the better part of fourcolumns on the phenomenon, Wood (1982) almost three pages; andSwan (1995), although noting that the use of shall is on the decrease,does accord about two pages to the problem.Since, in the first place, will, in all persons, is thus acceptablethroughout the English speaking world, and, secondly, the rule pre-scribing shall in the first person is of doubtful linguistic legitimacy,there would on the face of it seem to be a strong case for grammarianssimply to make the statement that in those cases where the modal-plus-infinitive option is chosen, the modal used is will. The information thatin one variant of English there is prescriptivist pressure for using shallin the first person could then be relegated to a footnote. However, asthere are still native speakers of English whose notions of propriety,regardless of how they were acquired, are offended by the ‘incorrect’use of the two modals (cf. the works by Partridge and Wood referred toabove), and as university students of English are preparing for a careeras professional speakers and writers of English, it might be argued that117they should at least be able to put on a linguistic behaviour conformingwith the strictest etiquette, even if that etiquette is not in accordancewith descriptive fact, and the grammarian would therefore be doing hisreaders a disservice unless he overcame his own descriptive qualms andrecorded the prescriptive rules, in spite of the fact that these rulesdictate a usage deviating from the one normally encountered andgenerally accepted.3.2. possibility, permission, necessity, and obligationIf,for the sake of the argument, we ignore the distinctions betweenepistemic, deontic and dynamic modality, the traditional statementconcerning the use of can, may, have to, and must expressing possibil-ity, permission, necessity and obligation amounts to something like thefollowing: PossibilityCan denotes an ‘actual possibility’ whereas may denotes an ‘uncertainpossibility’:Stockholm can be cold in winter.I may not be back until after midnight.PermissionPermission is expressed by may and, colloquially, can:May I make a suggestion?Can I take the car tonight?NecessityNecessity can (a) be imposed by somebody else (compulsion), it can (b)arise out of logic, it can (c) be the result of an inner urge, or it can (d)derive from outer circumstances. In all cases except (d), it is expressedby must:You must do as you are told.He must be at least 70.I must say I’m impressed.I have to meet them at eight.Out of this somewhat confusing picture there arose, at least in EnglishEnglish, a nice symmetrical system where the choice between on the118one hand can and have to, and on the other may and must was consis-tently determined by the source of the modality, thus:external internalpossibility can maypermission can maynecessity have to mustobligation have to mustThis system, then, would explain the distinctions between1.a. The door can be locked. (the possibility exists)b. The door may be locked. (it may or may not be, I don’t know)2.a. Can we smoke in here? (is it permitted?)b. May I make a suggestion? (do you permit?)3.a. There has to be a way out. (necessarily, otherwise, how did we getin?)b. You must be joking. (I’m sure)4.a. I have to meet them at eight.b. I must say I’m impressed.A beautiful situation of the type that structural linguists are always onthe lookout for, as it permits us to demonstrate to our students that‘grammar’ is not just a collection of disconnected rules that have to belearned by heart, but a coherent and logical system in which, once youhave understood its inherent logic, rote learning becomes unnecessary.However, no sooner had the new system established itself than itbegan to disintegrate, and the following counter-examples to 2.b., 3.b.,and 4.b, are now perfectly possible:Can I make a suggestion?You’ve got to be joking.Do you have to be playing that revolting music all the time?Such cases instantiate the point made in the introduction to this note:that all languages are inherently variable and heterogeneous systems atthe same time comprising vestiges of former patterns and thebeginnings of new ones. So, in addition to displaying neat and orderlygrammatical structures, the grammar will also have to show howlinguistic systems are systems in constant development. Moreover,119wherever there is variation, there is scope for prejudice, and if thatprejudice is wide-spread enough to be recorded in the more important‘good usage guides’, it will be the grammarian’s duty to at least makea note of the fact in spite of his or her possible descriptivist leanings.ConclusionAs will have appeared, I envisage a dual role for a university grammarfor foreign students: The grammar should of course assist students intheir acquisition of the foreign language by bringing new structuresand constructions to the students’ awareness, but along with that, thegrammar course should also teach them about language, in that itshould make them aware that the language is not just a practical skillnor a series of disconnected rules, but a coherent, self-contained, sys-tem.Moreover, many of the students will be in the situation where thevariant which they need to learn to command, at least in writing, willbe quite different from the one they employ in spontaneous and infor-mal conversation. The grammar course could here be the place wherethey discover that in addition to being a coherent system, language isalso a variable system always fuzzy at the edges: it will always encom-pass traces of earlier systems as well as the beginnings of future sys-tems, and although all varieties cannot possibly be part of the foreignstudents’ own spontaneous and unreflected use of the language, theremay well be contexts where normative attitudes in the foreign languagecommunity will expect them to know and be able to use variants dif-ferent from the one they use for the purposes of everyday communi-cation.ReferencesBloomfield, L. (1933): Language. London: Allen and Unwin.Hall, R.A. (1960): Linguistics and your Language (1950. Leave your Language Alone)New York: Anchor Books.Labov, W. (1972): Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.Palmer, F. (1987): The english Verb. London: Longman.Partridge, E.(1963): Usage and Abusage. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Preisler, B. (1995) Standard English in the World. Multilingua 14. 341-362.120Quirk, R. et al. (1972): A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Swan, M. (1995): Practical englsih Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Trudgill, P. (1975): Accent, Dialect and the School. London: Edward Arnold.Vestergaard, T. (1985/1993): Engelsk Grammatik. Copenhagen: Schønberg.Wood, F. T. (1982): Current English Usage. (revised by R.H. Flavell & L.M. Flavell)London: MacMillan.121122

Writing English Grammars for Danes: bridging the gap between prescriptivism and descriptivism

https://tidsskrift.dk/her/article/download/25398/22320

Writing English Grammars for Danes: bridging the gap between prescriptivism and descriptivism

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Tidsskrift.dk (Det Kongelige Bibliotek)