I do love all those wonderful controversies concerning grammar and syntax—you know, whether to noticeably split infinitives, whether to start a sentence with a big “but,” etc.
Here’s one of my pet peeves. Logicians know that “begging the question” is the fallacy committed when one assumes what one is supposed to be establishing. But some illiterate doodle-head decided to use “begging the question” to mean “forces the question upon us” a while back, and the world hasn’t been right since.
I’ll leave it to Jack Lynch, author of an online Guide to Grammar and Style, to explain:
Begging the Question.
It doesn't mean what you think it means. Begging the question — from the Latin petitio principii — is a logical fallacy; it means assuming your conclusion in the course of your argument. If you say "Everything in the Bible must be true, because it's the word of God," you're taking your conclusion for granted. If you say "The defendant must be guilty because he's a criminal," you're doing the same. It's a kind of circular logic. The conclusion may be true or false, but you can't prove something by assuming it's true.
This is very different from raising the question, though people are increasingly using the phrase that way. It's sloppy, and should be avoided. Here, for instance, is a piece from The Times (London), 30 Nov. 2004:
The behaviour of ministers is a matter for prime ministers, who appoint and dismiss them. But this begs the question of who should find out what has gone wrong on behalf of a prime minister.
No it doesn't. It raises the question; it prompts the question; perhaps it forces us to ask the question; maybe this question begs for an answer. But it doesn't beg the question.
11 comments:
Although they think they do, English teachers (generally speaking, of course) don't know squat about grammar.
A degree in English means you know a lot about the history of British and American literature.
Syntax, phonology, semantics, and, as Roy has pointed out, rhetoric are altogether different animals.
--100 miles
Yes, the kind of knowledge acquired by English profs is not linguistics, which, of course, is descriptive and not prescriptive. Still, by immersing themselves in the (English & American) literature of recent centuries (or decades), they almost inevitably learn the distinctions and the rules the maintenance of which allow for greater expression and communication. No? My colleagues in the English dept. (and "Humanists" at the college in general, I suppose) seem by and large more articulate and more able to communicate than authorities in other areas (though not with regards to those other areas, presumably). This, I think, is one reason why humanists and English instructors so often find themselves in positions of leadership among faculty. No? Whether they've mastered grammar (this term is importantly ambiguous, I think), they surely have mastered (or at least learned uncommonly much about) how best to express oneself. Isn't that ability what they are supposed to transmit to students? -R
11:57,
Well, yes, because students in college should have arrived there with a good grasp of grammar already. However, as it is current practice to admit students who have not been properly taught grammar while in their K-12 years, college English instructors must be prepared to teach grammar.
If grammar is prescriptive (unlike linguistics, which you describe as descriptive), then how can the term "grammar" be ambiguous? If grammar prescribes certain rules for our language, then should we not know that the term "grammar" refers to the proper use of our language as dictated by grammar's rules? Some things outside of grammar's rules may be considered right or wrong usage, but not a grammatical issue, necessarily. Do you mean that the term "grammar" is used ambiguously?
ES
"Grammar" has at least two meanings.
1.) The set of rules inside the head of a native speaker of English (or any other language, for that matter) that allow him/her to produce and understand an infinite number of sentences in that language.
2.) Stuff written in grammar books. The content of these grammar books is sometimes consistent with 1.) These books are usually written by linguists.
The content of other grammar books is sometimes wildly inconsistent with 1.). Unfortunately, this is what we English teachers teach in our classes.
Here's a quick quiz: How many tenses are there in English?
--100 miles
a) Past Perfect Progressive ........................had been + present participle
b) Past Perfect ..........................................had + past participle
c) Past Progressive ...................................was/were + present participle
d) Simple Past ..........................................past tense form
e) Present Perfect Progressive ...................have/has been + present participle
f) Present Perfect .....................................have/has + past participle
g)Present Progressive .................................am/is/are + present participle
h)Simple Present ........................................present tense form = almost same form as infinitive (except "to be"); when used with he/she/it: +(e)s (except modal helping verbs)
i)will-Future ...............................................will + infinitive
j)will-Future Progressive .............................will be + present participle
k)will-Future Perfect ...................................will have + past participle
l)will-Future Perfect Progressive ..................will have been + present participle
m)Going-to-Future ......................................am/is/are going to + infinitive
Sometimes, the Conditionals are also said to be tenses, but those are just modi of an actual tense, no tenses themselves.
ES(from internet search)
And I forgot to say, "Thank you, 100 Miles". Now I see why "grammar" is an ambiguous term.
ES
I’m no expert, but my limited knowledge of linguistics and rhetoric suggests to me that there are two (and perhaps other) senses of “grammar”:
(1) [LINGUISTICS GRAMMAR] the implicit rules that can be thought to “generate” the patterns of language of a particular speaker group (these are rules in the sense that physical laws are laws; they are essentially descriptive, though I suppose there is room here for the notion of “competence”) AND
(2) [PEDAGOGICAL GRAMMAR] the rules of “proper” speech and writing, typically mastered and illustrated by writers and members of the scholarly community.
The latter rules are prescriptive, i.e., they describe how one ought to write and speak, whether or not many actual speakers observe this standard. (There was a time of course when it was a mark of the educated speaker that he or she observed this “grammar.”) The former grammar is ultimately descriptive and concerns itself equally with the illiterate and the literate, the regional and the “standard.”
If this dichotomy is somehow erroneous, I’m sure some of you will explain that to me.
I wonder, 100M, what you mean by saying that grammar in the Pedagogical sense is (sometimes) wildly inconsistent with grammar in the linguistics sense. I assume—perhaps erroneously—that my own speech is the product of an effort to adjust my speech away from the (arguably inferior) grammar [linguistic sense] of an untutored SoCal speaker (with some Germanisms and Canadianisms thrown in) toward mastering the (arguably superior) grammar [linguistic sense] of “educated English” (in which one flouts but does not flaunt the rules, and one does not use “imply” and “infer” interchangeably).
Yes, there are differences, and in that sense the two grammars are “inconsistent.” So what? Why should the grammar of “educated English” by consistent with (i.e., the same as) the grammar of some kind of uneducated English?
In my own academic and intellectual saga (which started in a cave in a Germanic enclave in the mountains of British Columbia), I have been conscious (I believe) of an increased clarity and articulateness as I’ve learned to adopt “educated” English. I would not say that I have abandoned the old grammar however. In it’s own way, the “grammar” of my lupine youth—and of present pop culture and street palaver (etc.) is admirably articulate and expressive (in some spheres), and so, it seems to me, like many, I have embraced “proper English” grammar (which, I would argue, maintains a high level of expressiveness if only because of the richness of its vocabulary) while maintaining a fluency in the other “languages.” Woof!
None of this inspires me to reject writing instructors’ efforts to teach “proper English” or to denigrate English instructors’ imposition of that ideal.
(Sorry to be so verbose.)
The above post was directed as much to ES as to 100M.
Ay, ay, ay.
There's SO much to say, and it's SO late at night. Plus I just used 'way too much energy pushing the SD Chargers over the Raider's goal line in the last few seconds of the fourth quarter.
So much energy that I'm into my second six-pack of Pacifico. Can I reply tomorrow? The lifetime of most of these back-and-forths is two days.
--162.5 kilometers down the road
Not to worry, 100m; I sometimes reply several days later--and seem to draw responses, at least sometimes. I think some of us eagerly scan the "older" posts to see what's transpired, and whether anyone replied to our last ridiculous post before the most recent comments that are featured at the top-right of the blog.
I want to reply to this one, too--but must actually go to WORK for awhile first!
MAH
Yep - I do that - the scanning the old posts thing.
ES
Post a Comment