Everything your english teacher told you was wrong!

Everything your english teacher told you was wrong, at least, partially... (let's say it was occasionaly explained for the wrong reasons, so I don't take any flak for saying that.)

Disclaimer: I am not a linguistic. Specifics could be slightly wrong, though I think not. Take a book that introduces linguistics out of the library to learn more yourself...

I decided to write this because my college english teacher lectured the class on the definition of "harsh," after she had marked some assignments, and since I've been reading some books about syntax and linguistics lately, I knew she was "wrong." (More on that later)

It annoys me when people correct others on grammar and usage. I've done it myself, before I knew better. But there is a very good reason why it's wrong to do.

There are three categories applicable here. The "language," the "dialect," and the "idiolect." While most people in Canada may speak english, there are many different dialects. So already it's quite plausible for you to think it's improper to correct the pronunciation of someone from out of town. I'm not sure how dialects are considered dialects, but I know that it's sometimes based on how similar the dialect is to the others to be called part of the same language, or sometimes it's somewhat political (in the case of spoken mandarin and cantonese).

An idiolect is what *you* speak. Grammar, meanings, they're all personal. You can't be wrong. Since people all think about things differently, it isn't hard to imagine how your idiolect could be slightly different from the others of people who speak the same dialect as you. I found myself today using the word "worry" in place of "bother." They are quite close, but aren't synonyms. But am I wrong? There could be dialects of english where the word is used like that.

That was a usage question, but then there is grammar. Take the example of a stereotypical redneck town. People don't use "whom," they "gots" things, there are split infinitives and prepositions at the end of sentences -- oh my! So it is probably the case that many rural areas could be considered to be speaking different dialects.

Inner city blacks in New York speak a dialect that is supposedly much different from ours (I don't know much about it). They still speak english.

Dictionaries list usage. They aren't listing the correct way to speak. The same goes for grammars. However, they obviously aren't useless. So...

...that doesn't mean you can speak however you want! The most important thing for most people to know is that society will judge you! How do you think most people feel about the redneck dialect? Hey, redneck is already considered a bad word to be called. By speaking like them - you'll probably need to take on the pronunciation too - people will stereotype you as a redneck perhaps.

Another important thing to know, for people in the professional world especially, is that everyone needs to understand one another! In formal contexts then, you need to be careful how you word things. There are even formal citation guidlines for saying where you go sources from! You can see that understanding in very important in journals. So some people tend to hypercorrect themselves.

In the case of my teacher saying "harsh" is wrong, she had a bit of a point. An old guy reading your article on why the subway is harsh will be confused if you don't mean abrasive. Our class is more about research, so the teacher was right to say that. She knew very well what everyone meant though (she'd probably point out that "though" should be "however," and at the beginning of the sentence). But she should have made it seem less like "harsh" only had a certain meaning.

So practically what does this mean? When you need to be understood, or if you don't want to be judged, use the standard english like everyone else is probably using.

But when someone on a forum points out you should have used "whom," tell them to 'eff off.

<<But when someone on a forum points out you should have used "whom," tell them to 'eff off.>>

Just whom do you think you are?

waht do you mean by " 'eff off " anyways?

I guess it means 'buzz off', 'fuck off', 'get lost'.

To abc,

'eff off = f*** off. Not quite the most polite way to use on a forum or anywhere... I'd rather say "gimme a break" or "lemme be", even at the risk of sounding like a redneck. :)

To jjhlk,

What I personally think about grammatical correctness and usage, the case is somewhat different in formal and informal situations, as well as in writing and speech. In formal usage, especially in writing, there are unwritten (sometimes even codified) rules of how to say things to sound "correct" (as in a formal letter, for example), to the point of using certain fixed expressions. And overall in writing, you should aim at correctness and careful formulation, to avoid misunderstandings. Therefore formal written style (business or academic style, etc.) is more "fixed" to ensure exactness in rendering one's message. To sound "correct" means, therefore, to sound appropriate to a formal, educated style based on consensus as to what is appropriate to use and what is not. And in this way, poining to mistakes in "appropriateness" of formal usage and/or written style is fully justified.

In informal speech and writing, however, the main point is to be communicatively effective and usually also to involve the hearer. Therefore what is perceived as "incorrect" or "ungrammatical" can be tolerated more in informal usage - this is where "sociolect" and "idiolect" comes into the picture. Sentences like "I don't want no more", or "stupid is as stupid does" are typical to a community or a social class, and by speaking like that you are seen as part of that community or social group (as is the case with the "redneck" example). The spelling and style used in chatting is also a type of "sociolect", in my view. However, the dialectal or uneducated style is "incorrect" with regard to the educated style only, otherwise it follows its own rules of "correctness". Without this, communication would become impossible in it.

"Idiolect" is your own informal style, which is also more flexible on "correctness". On the whole, if you "mind what you say" too much in informal situations, then you are likely to sound stilted or unrelaxed. And normally you don't go around "correcting" people when you talk to them, because very soon you'll have no one to talk to. Instead, you focus on their message, and ask back if something is not clear.

On the other hand, speech style does depend on education. The more educated speakers are, the more they try to fit their style to a "correct" usage unconsciously, but in some relaxed situations, or when they get emotional, they will also end up sounding "incorrect". For example, if you are extremely upset, you may shout "I don't want no more!" instead of "I don't want any more!".

And yes, the meaning of words does change in the course of time, as illustrated by "worry" vs. "bother", and this also happens first on the "sociolect" level, or even on the "idiolect" level, in the case of persons whose style is regarded as a norm because of their position in a community. Otherwise there would have been no lingusitic change at all in history.

This type of conversation tends to be counterproductive in ESL/EFL contexts. ESL/EFL students need a clear standard that they can learn and emulate; the popular liberal attitude that "there's no such thing as grammar" or "everything is correct if you want it to be" is worse than useless to students trying to learn to communicate in English.

For non-native students of English, clear rules are essential. When and if they learn these rules completely and gain a high level of fluency, they will be able to experiment with bending them a bit, but not before. The objective of most ESL/EFL students is to communicate, not to assert their independence; and the more closely one follows a single standard, the more efficient and accurate communication tends to be.

The document of yours is so long that i could read it completely.

Mxsmanic, though, what about cases where there are significant differences between the "standard", and what the general population speaks? What is the use of having a "clear standard" if one simply cannot understand a good portion of the actual everyday speech of the native speaker population of a given language? For example, what if one is a non-native speaker of English, but one doesn't learn what "to have to" and "to be supposed to" mean, because those aren't used in the formal spoken and literary languages, even though those are nearly ubiquitous in informal spoken NAE? Likewise, would one teach individuals a general *style* that looks good in formal writing, but would today seem out of place in most speech, such as using subjunctives without subordinating conjunctions to express conditional-ness based on something that is potential? The matter is that individuals have to be taught the everyday spoken language, rather than just the "standard" literary language, even if they everyday spoken language is not formally standardized in any fashion (where then, you just have to choose a given dialect, and stick with it).

In reply to the posts by Travis and Mxsmanic, I think that at more advanced stages of ESL learning, it is useful or even necessary to confront the learner with samples of non-standard varieties of English, besides the general English that is being taught. Otherwise one may go to an English-speaking country thinking that they have fairly good English skills, but may get stuck with the first passer-by. Of course everybody will have this experience once in a target country, but making learners familiar with various dialects or sociolects of English will make this process easier and maybe less shocking.

IMO, it's important to know STANDARD English. If you speak some non-standard dialect, you could be considered a hick. I will admit, however, that if you drop someone in the middle of an American city, they are likely to hear some non-standard dialects, especially in certain parts of town.

What do you mean by "standard" though? The big matter is that, to me at least, "standard" refers solely to the literary language and the formal spoken language, which are *not* spoken by the general population on a daily basis. There are plenty of things which are "nonstandard" from a formal perspective, but which are effectively de facto standard in the everyday speech of the general English-speaking population of North America, even though many of such things are rarely written as such. For example, individuals who are to have any significant contact with spoken North American English should probably learn how to use NAE periphrasic modal constructions, or at least to understand them, as well as to be able to parse (and preferably use) much of the cliticization that goes on in NAE, including that which involves stem changes in affected words and that which is rarely reflected in writing.

These aren't "standard" in the sense that they aren't parts of the literary language or its direct spoken analogue, yet I doubt one is going too get that in English-speaking North America without understanding such things. Of course, when many individuals speak of things "standard", they are likely to overlook these kinds of things, simply because they somehow assume that their *own* speech is "standard", and also because they don't have a clear picture of what the term "standard" means here in the first place. Furthermore, many individuals may not realize that there are *very* significant differences between the literary and formal spoken languages and the informal spoken language in the case of English, or at least NAE (as I really cannot say that much about other dialect groups in this case myself), so hence they may be very apt to overlook these differences in the first place. In the end, this makes specifically teaching these kinds of differences only more important, because if they aren't *specifically* taught, they are very likely to be overlooked until someone who has been learning English is now in the middle of, say, the US or Canada, and realizes that there is plenty about the spoken English there that they haven't been taught.

"Eff" = F

As a non-native speaker and a teacher of English, I concur with Mxsmanic. While a native speaker is free to speak English in any way that is appropriate for his socio-economic background and environment, non-native speakers of English are subject to a different standard. It's difficult enough for an elementary/intermediate level student to use English in a manner that conforms to standard English; to introduce too many informal albeit prevalent usages too early in the process does more harm than good.

With more advanced students, I don't hesitate at all to introduce real life usages that are considered non-standard. Until they have mastered the rules, I would rather for them to sound 'too formal' than otherwise.

In summary, this is how I feel. When a native speaker deviates from the standard, it's considered "real live English". When a non-native speaker deviates from the standard, it's more likely considered "poor English".

The thing though is that it's not a matter of native speakers "deviating" from various "standard" forms, but rather said "standard" not being representative of the actual current spoken language in the first place, and also primarily pertaining to the literary language (which is something that people very often forget). Said "standard" forms are very often highly artificial in nature, and never have effectively reflected the spoken language as a whole. Hence, to go and teach such "standard" forms without making various common spoken forms outside of such clear may be just fine if one is likely to only read and write said language, in this case English, but such is wholly inadequate if one is actually going to speak such, as even if such is not going to, in one's own speech, go at all beyond such, one will still have to *understand* others, who are extremely likely to not care the least about said supposed "standard". If one is not taught about the *actual* everyday spoken language, even if one oneself doesn't use it, one's chances of understanding various native speakers is likely to be significantly diminished, to say the least.

As usual Mxsmanic is a voice of common sense.