#64797 - linguists and valid constructions

[Katya]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/64797/

I tried submitting this as a comment, but it was disproved (even though another comment with incorrect information was approved *grumble, grumble*).

Speaking as one of the linguistically-inclined peeps of the Board, I think you're actually looking for an English major rather than a linguist. Linguistics isn't concerned with the correctness of a construction so much as the process behind producing the construction.

I wouldn't say this is accurate. Descriptive linguists certainly have methods of determining if a sentence is a valid or well-formed construction in a certain language, it's just that we don't think much of arbitrary rules invented by self-appointed language experts.

For example, if you asked a descriptive linguist if the phrase "мне нравится" was a valid English construction, they would say no, based on the fact that it's not something English speakers produce or understand.

Likewise, if you present the construction "to me it pleases itself," a descriptive linguist will still be able to determine that it's not a valid English construction, even if it's more comprehensible than the first one. (How well a phrase is understood can be tested experimentally, or simply by trusting one's own judgment as a native speaker. How frequently a construction is produced can be tested by searching a relevant language corpus.)

These types of tests can proceed all the way to the type of construction mentioned in the original question, which is close enough to being a valid (American) English construction that the reader thinks it might be a dialectical issue.

And D.A.R.E., there are indeed some linguists who are concerned with the correctness of a construction. They are called prescriptive linguists, and tend to be old-fashioned. My linguistics professors spent many a happy hour mocking them in class, so clearly they aren't taken seriously.

Again, descriptive linguists absolutely have tools for testing the validity of a sentence construction (with the understanding that more precise terms like "valid" and "well-formed" are likely to be preferred to "correct").

[Whistler]

thanks for blurring this strange dichotimization

[D.A.R.E.]

Sorry, Katya. You're absolutely right about the nuances of descriptive linguistics. I didn't get any more in depth about the subject because, well, I'm still pretty new to the subject, having only just started my program. To be fair, though, the (basic) idea I was trying to get across was that a prescriptive linguist or an English major are more likely to correct incorrect grammar than a descriptive linguist is. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong there.

Also, did you see Board Question #64836? I wrote it with you in mind, actually.

[Katya]

Sorry, Katya. You're absolutely right about the nuances of descriptive linguistics. I didn't get any more in depth about the subject because, well, I'm still pretty new to the subject, having only just started my program. To be fair, though, the (basic) idea I was trying to get across was that a prescriptive linguist or an English major are more likely to correct incorrect grammar than a descriptive linguist is. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong there.

You're absolutely right about those characterizations—it was just the phrasing of that one part that seemed off. (And the fact that your answer was correct in substance was probably why my comment didn't get approved.) Also, are you reading Language Log? You should be reading Language Log because they do a good job of talking about this kind of thing. (Of course, I think everyone should read Language Log.)

Also, did you see Board Question #64836? I wrote it with you in mind, actually.

I did see it!

[D.A.R.E.]

I haven't read much of Language Log, actually. My MA program is actually in Japanese linguistics with an emphasis on translation. Would it still be relevant and useful to me? I'm all about being one of the cool kids and reading the LL (which I assume is what they call it on the street), but I'm not sure I'd want other terms and ideas bouncing around in my head if it's not, since I'm already having trouble enough staying caught up with the other students who have an actual background in linguistics. (Those of you who are experts in linguistics who want to provide support or explain things to me from time to time, just drop me an email. d.a.r.e@theboard.byu.etc)

[Katya]

I haven't read much of Language Log, actually. My MA program is actually in Japanese linguistics with an emphasis on translation. Would it still be relevant and useful to me? I'm all about being one of the cool kids and reading the LL (which I assume is what they call it on the street), but I'm not sure I'd want other terms and ideas bouncing around in my head if it's not, since I'm already having trouble enough staying caught up with the other students who have an actual background in linguistics.

It's really just a bunch of professors writing whatever they want to write, so the topics and the tone bounce around a lot. There's one professor who writes a ton about translation between Chinese and English, though, which might be relevant to Japanese, as well. If I were you, I'd subscribe to it through an RSS feed and read the first paragraph of every post. If it seems interesting and accessible, keep going. If not, move on.

(Those of you who are experts in linguistics who want to provide support or explain things to me from time to time, just drop me an email. d.a.r.e@theboard.byu.etc)

I don't know how much of an expert you need, but you know I'm always happy to help, right?

[D.A.R.E.]

I'll take a look at it, then. And I'll be sure to ask you if I'm ever stuck on a term or a concept. Which will probably be sooner rather than later. Thanks, friend.