The Guardian Says Correcting Grammar Is Racist; Expression Of White Privilege

[Oafman]

 

[GoldenBoy89]

 

[sfs]

Sorry, going to re-write your words: "and between those who can speak english correctly and all of the others."

And what, for you, defines "correctly"?

If you cannot correctly communicate your ideas to other people you are at a disadvantage in society. If you are a rapper communicating to other rappers you can get away with "dialect". If you are that same rapper communicating with a lawyer in that same dialect....well don't be surprised at the outcome......

You appear to be making my point for me. As far as a linguist is concerned, a rapper's grammar is exactly as correct as the grammar I use in scholarly publications. The different dialects(*) belong to different communities, and those communities have different social and economic status (a status that may vary depending on context, of course).

(*) No need for scare quotes.

 

[The Cadet]

Sorry, going to re-write your words: "and between those who can speak english correctly and all of the others."

But despite that, you still understand me. My writings here may be different than what you might expect, and indeed they were written to prove a point, but it's still clearly understood. You know exactly what I'm saying. Despite the fact that almost every sentence here contained a grammar violation, there's absolutely no difficulty understanding my english. So what benefit does speaking "correctly" have, exactly?

I live in Germany, and let me tell you, these sort of arbitrary, nonsensical rules are a huge barrier. We have no less than 5 different definite articles depending on the tense and the gender of the noun (der, die, das, den, dem, and I'm not even sure that's all of them), and there's no reason for it. Get it wrong, and you're a lousy german speaker. Never mind that it's essentially completely arbitrary, and that there's no real reason to have 5 definite articles when just having one would do just fine. I nearly flunked out of school because of my grades in German Lit, entirely because of my inability to wrap my head around rules whose existence provides absolutely no benefit to the language!

 

[civilwarbuff]

You appear to be making my point for me. As far as a linguist is concerned, a rapper's grammar is exactly as correct as the grammar I use in scholarly publications.

You don't, however, write your scholarly publications the way a rapper talks, do you? Because if you did, your target audience would miss large chunks of your message, correct? If you noticed (which you must not have) the example I gave was not the point you attemped to make.

As far as a linguist is concerned, a rapper's grammar is exactly as correct as the grammar I use in scholarly publications.

But only if he is talking to another rapper. As I stated before if he speaks to a lawyer the same way.....don't be surprised at the outcome.

 

[civilwarbuff]

But despite that, you still understand me. My writings here may be different than what you might expect, and indeed they were written to prove a point, but it's still clearly understood. You know exactly what I'm saying. Despite the fact that almost every sentence here contained a grammar violation, there's absolutely no difficulty understanding my english. So what benefit does speaking "correctly" have, exactly?

I live in Germany, and let me tell you, these sort of arbitrary, nonsensical rules are a huge barrier. We have no less than 5 different definite articles depending on the tense and the gender of the noun (der, die, das, den, dem, and I'm not even sure that's all of them), and there's no reason for it. Get it wrong, and you're a lousy german speaker. Never mind that it's essentially completely arbitrary, and that there's no real reason to have 5 definite articles when just having one would do just fine. I nearly flunked out of school because of my grades in German Lit, entirely because of my inability to wrap my head around rules whose existence provides absolutely no benefit to the language!

I understand,...if my life depended on diagramming a sentence I would just go ahead and shoot myselft and save them the trouble. I hate english but love to read....I guess that is where I learned my grammar (punctuation....not so much).

 

[sfs]

You don't, however, write your scholarly publications the way a rapper talks, do you? Because if you did, your target audience would miss large chunks of your message, correct?

Of course I wouldn't write for publication that way. Not only wouldn't it all be understood, it wouldn't be socially acceptable. It also wouldn't be socially acceptable to talk like a scientist while rapping. As I suggested, context matters.

If you noticed (which you must not have) the example I gave was not the point you attemped to make.

Since you deliberately replaced "socially privileged dialect" with "speak english correctly", I assumed you meant that one dialect actually is correct and the other not. Is that not what you meant?

But only if he is talking to another rapper. As I stated before if he speaks to a lawyer the same way.....don't be surprised at the outcome.

I wouldn't be surprised at the outcome. Have I written anything to suggest that I would be surprised?

 

[Chesterton]

That's quite true: in many areas of life, there's a right way and a wrong way. It just so happens, however, that language is not one of those areas. There are thousands of extant languages and tens of thousands of dialects, and far more that have been left behind in history. All of them function perfectly well as media for human communication, as would a vast number of potential alternatives. Unlike brain surgery, people can use all sorts of different grammars just fine without any formal education whatever; in fact, we seem to be hard-wired to learn the grammar of our native language, and we do so with great facility.

What most of us struggle to learn is a set of arbitrary rules that actually aren't part of our native grammar -- rules like "Don't end a sentence with a preposition", "Don't split infinitives", "Write 'different from', not 'different than'", "Don't use 'which' to introduce a restrictive clause", "Don't use the passive voice", and on and on. Teachers have to make us memorize such rules precisely because they're not really part of the grammar for us as native speakers of English. As far as I can tell, the only function for such rules (most of which are nonsensical linguistically and historically) is to distinguish between educated and uneducated writers or speakers, and between socially privileged dialects and all of the others.

It's hard to believe you think the only function is social stuff when there have been people's posts on these forums that I just scoll past when I see their name because they consistently write so poorly I can't understand what they're trying to say. Which is nothing at all like saying they're stupid; maybe English isn't their first language, I don't know, they may be 100 times smarter than me, but we can't communicate when the rules are broken so badly I can't understand what's being said.

We already distinguish between educated and uneducated writers by handing out pieces of paper. The educated ones get diplomas, the uneducated ones don't. But if you mean "educated in grammar", you're absolutely right that we use grammar to distinguish between educated and uneducated writers. The educated will be distinguished by being easy, meaningful and enjoyable to read, maybe even eloquent. The uneducated will be difficult and unenjoyable to read, maybe even impossible.

As far as "socially privileged dialects" I don't really know what they are. (God bless America.)

 

[sfs]

It's hard to believe you think the only function is social stuff when there have been people's posts on these forums that I just scoll past when I see their name because they consistently write so poorly I can't understand what they're trying to say. Which is nothing at all like saying they're stupid; maybe English isn't their first language, I don't know, they may be 100 times smarter than me, but we can't communicate when the rules are broken so badly I can't understand what's being said.

There are a few rules of written English that are important for comprehensibility, but other than that, I rarely have trouble because posters are breaking grammatical rules. I have trouble because they don't write well, which is something very different.

We already distinguish between educated and uneducated writers by handing out pieces of paper. The educated ones get diplomas, the uneducated ones don't.

We don't assess people's education by their diplomas most of the time; the diploma is sitting on a shelf somewhere. We do assess them by their written and spoken language.

But if you mean "educated in grammar", you're absolutely right that we use grammar to distinguish between educated and uneducated writers. The educated will be distinguished by being easy, meaningful and enjoyable to read, maybe even eloquent. The uneducated will be difficult and unenjoyable to read, maybe even impossible.

Based on many years of reading and editing the writing of other academics, I'd have to say that this is simply wrong. Well-educated writers often write very badly indeed. Really good writers generally have a pretty good level of education, since they've probably read a lot, but education in grammar has pretty much nothing to do with it.

As far as "socially privileged dialects" I don't really know what they are. (God bless America.)

If you don't know what a privileged dialect is, then you probably speak one. If I walk into an American courtroom or boardroom speaking with an urban black accent and dialect, or a rural Southern dialect and accent, I will immediately receive less consideration than if I sound like I graduated from Yale. Some people can use multiple dialects, depending on context, which is a useful skill.

 

[Chesterton]

There are a few rules of written English that are important for comprehensibility, but other than that, I rarely have trouble because posters are breaking grammatical rules. I have trouble because they don't write well, which is something very different.

Well, breaking grammatical rules is one aspect of not writing well, and I've seen a lot of it over the years.

We don't assess people's education by their diplomas most of the time; the diploma is sitting on a shelf somewhere. We do assess them by their written and spoken language.

I would find it utterly impossible to tell if a person had a college education by whether they used grammar correctly. Grammar is taught from the time one begins to talk/read up through high school. They should know it before they get to college.

Based on many years of reading and editing the writing of other academics, I'd have to say that this is simply wrong. Well-educated writers often write very badly indeed. Really good writers generally have a pretty good level of education, since they've probably read a lot, but education in grammar has pretty much nothing to do with it.

I'm confused. I specifically distinguished between having "an education" in general and being educated in (knowing) grammar, because I wasn't clear on whether you were distinguishing. I know that one can still be a bad writer either way, but surely you're not saying a person can be a good writer without knowing grammar?

If you don't know what a privileged dialect is, then you probably speak one. If I walk into an American courtroom or boardroom speaking with an urban black accent and dialect, or a rural Southern dialect and accent, I will immediately receive less consideration than if I sound like I graduated from Yale. Some people can use multiple dialects, depending on context, which is a useful skill.

Now you're mixing accent in with dialect. I understand accent is considered a part of dialect, but I don't believe that Southerners, for example, use much different grammar.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Now you're mixing accent in with dialect. I understand accent is considered a part of dialect, but I don't believe that Southerners, for example, use much different grammar.

When I was working in very upstate NY I once had a patient on the table (heart attack) and I was prepping him for his heart cath. I caught his deep southern accent (Alabama trucker). He was pretty scared and I let myself slip back into my southern Ohio accent; even the nurses noticed. He seemed to relax after a few minutes of talking with a "fellow southerner". I can assure anyone his grammar was every bit as good as mine.....

 

[seashale76]

Filed under "guess what's racist now".

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5145/video-guardian-says-correcting-grammar-racist-robert-kraychik

Here's a thought. England is a country that has English as the official language. England happens to be one of the places where whites are indigenous. If any native English speakers in England are going around correcting the grammar of those around them, I don't see it as an act of racism but rather as trying to get everyone around them to embrace the culture they live in. When a country takes on the US version of race relations when they don't even have the history we have, it is beyond stupid. It actually smacks of hatred against the native white inhabitants more than anything else.

Having been over there, I noticed that most white people don't even speak the language properly. I have an inkling all of this has very little to do with race and has a lot more to do with social class, education, and the resentment people have against those that are further up the chain than they are.

 

[HannahT]

Now you're mixing accent in with dialect. I understand accent is considered a part of dialect, but I don't believe that Southerners, for example, use much different grammar.

No, they don't. Yet, the stereotypes people view you with ONCE you start using that dialect - Southern as your example!

I remember as a child I had to drop my 'drawl' in order to NOT be seen as some crazy redneck. It was also a sign of lack of intelligent. That's what I found when moving North.

I guess they would call other dialects 'privileged', because I must be one of those 'Streetcars Named Desire' or 'Huckleberry Finn' types.

My friends used to tease me that I learned how to speak 'Yankee' (They said that - not ME) pretty QUICK! The H tells me that I still use terms from my youth, and when I get real tired my drawl comes out slightly.

I didn't use a different language or a different form of grammar.....lol but they sure did act like I did!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

ADMIN HAT ON

Thread moved to News and Current Events per request from OP

ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, they don't. Yet, the stereotypes people view you with ONCE you start using that dialect - Southern as your example!

I remember as a child I had to drop my 'drawl' in order to NOT be seen as some crazy redneck. It was also a sign of lack of intelligent. That's what I found when moving North.

I guess they would call other dialects 'privileged', because I must be one of those 'Streetcars Named Desire' or 'Huckleberry Finn' types.

My friends used to tease me that I learned how to speak 'Yankee' (They said that - not ME) pretty QUICK! The H tells me that I still use terms from my youth, and when I get real tired my drawl comes out slightly.

I didn't use a different language or a different form of grammar.....lol but they sure did act like I did!

Same thing happened to me when I lived in northern MN and upstate NY.....and came back to southern Ohio and caught the reverse....can't win.....

 

[Four Angels Standing]

I understand,...if my life depended on diagramming a sentence I would just go ahead and shoot myselft and save them the trouble. I hate english but love to read....I guess that is where I learned my grammar (punctuation....not so much).

I would say if you meet someone that is so inclined as to criticize your conversation with them like one would grade the diagramming of a sentence back in English class, that you're better off finding someone else to talk to.

 

[nightflight]

Here's the link to the guardian article with the video (which I should have posted).
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nising-pretentious-and-just-plain-wrong-video

In the comments, Mona Chalabi seems to regret the way she put all this, saying:

"A lot of commenters have pointed out that they’re frustrated that I said grammar snobs are more likely to be white. In retrospect, I’m annoyed I said it too. I was thinking of people who come to the UK from countries like Jamaica, people who speak English as a first language and speak it perfectly but don't necessarily follow the rules of British grammar. Actually, it would have been much more relevant to have said that grammar snobs are more likely to be native speakers who don’t know what it’s like to live abroad and struggle with a different set of language rules. Race doesn’t necessarily come into it at all."

Maybe she just reflexively attributed grammar-correcting to white privilege, since it seems to be the default explanation for many things these days.

 

[seashale76]

Here's the link to the guardian article with the video (which I should have posted).
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nising-pretentious-and-just-plain-wrong-video

In the comments, Mona Chalabi seems to regret the way she put all this, saying:

"A lot of commenters have pointed out that they’re frustrated that I said grammar snobs are more likely to be white. In retrospect, I’m annoyed I said it too. I was thinking of people who come to the UK from countries like Jamaica, people who speak English as a first language and speak it perfectly but don't necessarily follow the rules of British grammar. Actually, it would have been much more relevant to have said that grammar snobs are more likely to be native speakers who don’t know what it’s like to live abroad and struggle with a different set of language rules. Race doesn’t necessarily come into it at all."

Maybe she just reflexively attributed grammar-correcting to white privilege, since it seems to be the default explanation for many things these days.

So, it's really just culture shock, and instead of realizing it, she is taking her own hang ups in life and transferring them onto those around her. If it were me moving to another country, I'd be told to conform, realize my culture shock for what it is, and get over myself.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Here's the link to the guardian article with the video (which I should have posted).
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nising-pretentious-and-just-plain-wrong-video

In the comments, Mona Chalabi seems to regret the way she put all this, saying:

"A lot of commenters have pointed out that they’re frustrated that I said grammar snobs are more likely to be white. In retrospect, I’m annoyed I said it too. I was thinking of people who come to the UK from countries like Jamaica, people who speak English as a first language and speak it perfectly but don't necessarily follow the rules of British grammar. Actually, it would have been much more relevant to have said that grammar snobs are more likely to be native speakers who don’t know what it’s like to live abroad and struggle with a different set of language rules. Race doesn’t necessarily come into it at all."

Maybe she just reflexively attributed grammar-correcting to white privilege, since it seems to be the default explanation for many things these days.

And maybe she realized what an a** she made of herself by the comments she received and tried to backtrack and save her backside.....

 

[nightflight]

And maybe she realized what an a** she made of herself by the comments she received and tried to backtrack and save her backside.....

Maybe. But I doubt she was ever in danger of professional loss; just the opposite.