![]() It says suggest that people who construct such utterances are, somehow, uneducated, or else are outsiders. This is a subjective assessment.īut "poor grammar" specifically seeks to attribute a negative connotation to the utterance. Markedness is always framed in terms of a cultural context, by which I mean that it is okay to say that Americans generally find the British "go on holiday" to be marked - it sticks out in the American dialects. The notion of markedness is that, for some group of people, a given utterance will strike them as not being something they themselves would say. No, markedness is not also known as "poor grammar". Although it is not controversial to say that these characteristics are marked in General American dialects, the specific connotations of the labels are generally understood to be rooted in a desire to portray Black Americans as belonging to a lower class, regardless of each individual's actual socioeconomic status. This dialect has a number of characteristics that are frequently labeled as "uneducated" or constituting "poor grammar". For example, in the United States there is a dialect commonly practiced by Black people in certain areas called African American Vernacular English. There are also more recent efforts in a similar vein, as well. The correlation to class distinction comes from the fact that people who tended to study Latin and revered Latin in this manner were members of an aristocracy, theocracy, or similar upper class, and there are other instances of these groups' efforts to arbitrarily distinguish themselves as being distinct from and superior to other groups of people. The rules were made up by people who revered Latin and thought English ought to be more Latin-esque. never begin a sentence with a conjunctionīut we can find literary examples breaking any of these rules going back further than the origins of the rules. ![]() never end a sentence with a preposition Many of the "rules" we were taught can be traced directly back to an ongoing movement in the relatively recent past (like within the last 100-300 years, I think) to regularize English according to Latin grammar. I should rather have said "although we can no longer ascertain for certain the purpose for which these rules were introduced, some believe the origin to be rooted in a desire for creating an arbitrary class distinction." > Do you have any proof that "they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction"?Īpologies you are correct that my assertion is overly strong. It might be marked for you, but that does not make it "wrong" or "bad" or "poor" universally. But for general everyday speech? The rule is straightforward: if you understand the intent, then it is not incorrect. If you are writing, say, an academic paper that you want to publish at a particular venue, then you are expected to adhere to the grammatical conventions of that venue. Does that make these utterances ungrammatical universally? Absolutely not.)Ĭontext is important. (A simple example offhand: American English speakers find the British constructions of "go to hospital" or "to be on holiday" to be marked. Undoubtedly, there are utterances you would produce that members of other groups of native English speakers would find marked. So it is wrong to say that your notion of markedness is universal. So, in those groups, the utterance is unmarked. In these groups, this is a regular way to emphasize a negative. There do exist large groups of native English speakers for whom this utterance is not marked. (And, indeed, I also find it to be marked in my own dialect.) Clearly, "can't never" is marked in your perspective. If the majority of a specific group of speakers of a language find a particular utterance (phrase, sentence, pronunciation, etc) to stand out in a way that feels unnatural, then that utterance is called "marked". Now, there's something to be said about markedness. Most of the grammatical "rules" we tend to be taught in primary and secondary school English courses were invented relatively recently, and they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction. There is no such thing as "poor grammar" - it's a myth. That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |