Loading ...
Children’s Secretary Ed Balls (guffaw) has announced today that the much-reviled national tests for 14-year-olds have been abolished.
Why is this annoying? Because children are workshy little bastards who SHOULD be tested at age 14, if only to distract them from their upcoming GCSE in knife-wielding? Because of the steady stream of fucking irritating self-righteous parents phoning in to Radio 5 to share their incredibly important views about how this change will impact gifted little Tarquin and Jemima? Because Mr Balls must have realised that his test(e)s were bollocks, and that he was nuts to have introduced them in the first place?
Well, yes to all three - but mostly because everyone’s referring to them as “Sats tests”. SAT stands for “Statutory Assessment Test” - so “SATs tests” unabbreviates to “Statutory Assessment Tests Tests”. It’s either an “SA Test”, or a “SAT”. Unless you’re Gollum, in which case “SAT-ssss Test-ssss” is acceptable. Sorry if I’m being “precious”…
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 14th, 2008 at 4:32 pm and is filed under Grammar, Irritating Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
I could bore you with a very long and excessively detailed description of how acronyms can become neologisms in their own right, but I’ll spare you. Suffice to say that while I personally say ‘SATs’ instead of the arguably tautologous ‘SAT tests’, but I am guilty of ‘ATM machine’ and ‘PIN number’ - and I bet you are too.
I was expecting a little spurt of neolo-jism at some stage. Next, you’ll be telling me that putting “LOL” after every written or texted sentence - which young people do, whether there’s any humour involved or not - is acceptable. Language may be amorphou’s and ever-changing, but to excuse bad or stupid usage by saying “well, everyone does it these days” (even wrapped in the faux-academic cloak of a long word like “neologism”) is the thin end of a wedge of thicko’s nationwide. Liberal egalitarian though I may be, I still reserve the right to point and laugh at thicko’s.
PS - I say “cashpoint”, not ATM, but I’m occasionally guilty on “PIN number”. And “SAT Test” isn’t “arguably” tautologou’s, it’s tautologou’s as the day is long.
(Sorry, is there a problem with the apostrophe’s? Everyone else doe’s it….)
I’ve mellowed an incredible amount since coming to university; I’m not so much of a Grammar Nazi as a Grammar UKIP MP these days. Essentially, however bitter the taste it might leave in the mouth, a linguist’s job is to be a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist. Language is the words that people speak, not some hallowed ideal, some transcendent Form of the Language.
That being said, I agree that some language is, subjectively at least, more beautiful or eloquent than other types. You and I both recognise, for example, Hotdog as a master craftsmen of the written word, and yes, we’d both rather read his elegant prose than a paragraph of “OMG lolz it was like so wack yo rofl”. Furthermore, I agree that there is such a thing as ‘bad’ English, by which I mean English that is difficult to understand or can cause ambiguities, such as your errant apostrophes or confused homonyms. However, these examples aside, strictly speaking, there is no difference in validity between teenage text speak and Wildesque sculpted sentences as a method of communication. It really is a matter of personal taste, much as it pains me to admit. Language changes, and always will, unfortunately.
Well, obviously that’s a bunch of New Labour one-legged-lesbian communist alfalfa-munching liberal terrorist-loving hippy crap; but aside from those reservations, I respect your opinion.
Aïe! It burns!
Good. Burning was intended.
Seriously - I’m amazed by your total volte-face, and can only conclude that you fancy your commie linguistics teacher at uni.
Seriously seriously - of course what you say is correct. The notions of prescriptivism and “correct” usage are, and always have been, chimaeras (chimaerae?). The old chestnut that’s always trotted out is that Shakespeare spelled his name 2,731,247 different ways (or something) in his manuscripts. If you break it down, grammar nazism is really just about the opportunity to sneer and poke fun at people who might be less well-informed / literate - and that’s exactly why I’m going to keep on doing it.
Seriously seriously seriously - if we’re agreed prescriptivism in language is pointless, where (out of interest, and not meant in any confrontational way) would you, as someone who knows considerably more about it than me, draw the line? Would it be OK for a school teacher to instruct pupils along the lines of “this is how most people spell “receive”, but if you want to spell it a different way, that’s also OK”?
I think I’m going to be sick…
Why? Because of the acceptance of mushy descriptivism? Or because I said that LZ “knows considerably more about it than me”? If it’s the latter, it’s perfectly true; she’s studying linguistics after all; I’m nothing but an angry dilettante.
Because my bright, young, conservative muse is having her volume turned down to a very dull pallor. If I have any talent at all, it’s because I have some small understanding of the importance and rightness of language. Understanding–which is a word we abuse greatly–is a word-picture of standing under something; in the sense of accepting its authority.
The great artists of the past often did not paint or sculpt the paintings and sculptors they are now credited with. Under their tutelage were many apprentices, who were taught to precisely mimic their masters, so that individual artists were indistinguishable; except to note to which master they belonged. Once achieved, they became masters in their own right, and were freed to explore their own styles. In this way excellence begot excellence, and yet each iteration had it’s own style; its own mark. After a time, this fell out of fashion, art was democratized, and every five year old in the land has crayons to chew. I would hazard that 500,000 times as may drawings are produced today than during the Renaissance. Their rate of art produced, however, still out-paces us massively if we consider their content, and quality.
Language should change–no question about that–but it’s a sorry society that admits the command of it to snot-nosed kids as it would to Shakespeare.
I’ll let Zoe respond to our questions herself, but I’ll say the following -
1) We’re only really talking about prescriptive grammar and spelling here, not “righteousness” - sorry, “rightness of language” as a whole. And in any case, there’s no doubt that astonishing wordcraft can come from outside the normal academia-grounded channels; Eminem and Mike Skinner are two examples among many. I’d whup both of their butts in a spelling bee, but ultimately I can’t really use language with anything like the sophistication of either of them.
2) The last sentence of your “art” para is massively subjective and written with 20/20 hindsight. And…
3) When I was a whelp, it was the normal thing for young ‘uns to espouse socialism / what is now called liberalism, and then to adopt more conservative positions later in life. I suspect that that with LZ, the process may well be largely contrariwise. (Zoe - apologies for talking about you as if you’re some kind of invisible Eliza Doolitle).
“[A]stonishing wordcraft can come from outside the normal academia-grounded channels; Eminem and Mike Skinner are two examples among many.”
Certainly true. I don’t know who Mike Skinner is (though the name rings a bell), but Eminem is a good example of exactly what I was talking about. He studied his art with (what I believe–I wasn’t there) a magnificent fervor. And, despite being white in Detroit, despite no connections whatsoever, he made it to the top of the charts multiple times. I think you’re mistaking my remark about under-standing with formal education. If you and Zoe are to be believed, my talents certainly cannot be said to come from normal academia…because I never attended. I’m talking about the idea–the attitude–that we ought to recognize excellent work, encourage people to submit* to widely accepted standards of excellence, and discourage half-hearted, disinterested, and disinteresting work. Apathy will find its own way.
Subjective, yes, quite. That doesn’t mean it’s not well-founded, or that it is unique. I have no fear that a good perusal of current criticism will lead you to a different conclusion.
*Note that submission is an act of the student, and not of force by the educator.
Gosh. Right. Where to start?
Firstly, Taf, all my Linguistics teachers are female. I do somewhat fancy my eccentric French Philosophy teacher, mainly because he has the sexiest French accent in the history of accents, the French and indeed sex, but that’s largely irrelevant.
My point was that, in a purely objective and theoretical sense, prescriptivism is pointless. Much of it derives from the 1920s, when grammar style books became popular. They were so competitive that they actually started making up more and more complex and ridiculous ‘rules’ of English to appear to have the upper hand over other books. Buy MY book, for unlike the course heathens that call themselves my rivals, I am the only person sophisticated enough to know that no word pertaining to an even number may be placed as the second word in a sentence except in cases where the aforementioned word contains the letter ‘j’! This is where such crazy nonsenses as not ending a sentence with a preposition and not splitting infinitives (both absurd as they apply only to Latin and, as I said, are entirely fictitious) come from.
Back in the Tudor era, English did not have a passive voice; one would say, “My house is painting,” rather than, “My house is being painted.” At the time that the new version started to creep in, the higher echelons of wordiness would tut at how ignorant the common people were to say such a thing - and yet now it is perfectly grammatical to us. Likewise, whether we like it or not, the who/whom distinction is dying out (and really, why not? English has very few case distinctions left in any case), and will one day be obsolete, indeed, grammatically incorrect. As much as I shudder to think of it, perhaps one day in the future, “I done,” will be correct - and not only that, it will be seen as beautiful.
Now, before you write me off as a liberal, let me remind you that I still value very much the importance of a standard in any language. In answer to your question about the teacher, of course the standard ought to be taught as what ought to be aspired to, else what is the point of a standard at all? All I am saying, which is not so very radical, is that the standard itself is not absolute; it is created by man, and thus is in itself subjective, to a point. There is no reason why we ought to say ‘dog’ rather than ‘chien’, and likewise no necessary reason for preferring ‘I did’ to ‘I done”; rather, we have chosen as a society to do so, and thus conformity is desired if understanding is ever to be possible. But the standard will, and must, change over time and that is where prescriptivism loses its battle. Bear in mind that the standard itself is arbitrary; before the days of Caxton, books were written in different dialects depending on where they were written. When the printing press came about, Caxton did the sensible thing and chose to print all books in ONE dialect - the Oxford/Cambridge/London triangle dialect - because it was spoken by the richest people and they would provide him with the most profit. Had it occurred differently, the new translations of the Bible may well have said today, “And God said, ‘Way-ay! Let there be light.’”
As for Cane’s argument regarding excellence, I agree to a very large extent, but I don’t see that there is too much of a problem today. Yes, people are encouraged to dabble in the arts, and rightly so - I am really a very untalented flautist but I enjoy it immensely, and so the wind band puts up with my wrong notes, knowing that I’m trying. But no one is ever going to put me in the Philharmonic Orchestra or point to my playing as an example of greatness. Similarly, it is generally accepted that the practically illiterate teenagers who fill Myspace with their inane ramblings (as opposed to rather too literate almost-teenagers who fill Myspace with their inane ramblings like me…) are not the new Shakespeare and never will be - so why not let them blog? The exceptions I can think of are the likes of Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin, but I really couldn’t care less about them, frankly. Fine, apathy will find its own way, you say - but so will genius.
One more thing for Taf: the day I vote Labour is the day I shall personally disembowel myself on bended knee before the grave of Sir Winston Churchill.
Oh, and just to lighten things up, I saw another tautology on the menu outside one of the campus’ cafes today: Vegetarian Ratatouille. As opposed to what, exactly?
Ratatouille made out of actual rat, maybe?
Zoe, when I was your age (I love a patronising opening gambit…) I would have said much the same thing about the Tories - but with the passage of time and endless changes in the world situation / the personnel involved, bright people tend to shake off their tribal political shackles. Hence much as I’m no fan of Cameron’s I would have no hesitation in voting for Michael Howard, as he’s an excellent local MP. No offence, but the sort of people who say “I’m with this party ’til the day I die” and stick to it no-matter-what are usually the same sort of people who think it’s clever to call Obama an “Arab” or a “terrorist” on national television.
Fine, perhaps I was hasty to bring an actual party into the equation. But what I mean is this: I am a conservative, first and foremost, even more than I am a Conservative. The Conservative party itself is far from perfect and if another party were to arise who better put my ideals into practice and had a decent chance of getting elected then certainly, I would vote for them. But I cannot see that my ideals themselves will or could ever change. How could I depart from love of freedom and responsibility and an abhorrence of dependence? I am an individualist, not a collectivist and I find it very difficult to envisage a time where this is no longer the case.
I’ve been down the “define conservatism” road with you before, and it was something of a dead end, as I remember. And I’m saving up a post about the internet encouraging false collective group loyalties generally (i.e. either you’re the gay-loving pro-abortion vegetarian pro-government-intervention “liberal” camp or you’re a gun-loving pro-life blah blah blah) - in short, I don’t believe in “conservative” vs. “liberal”; it’s a construct of the American media (especially the internet) and it doesn’t have any on-the-ground meaning here. Or there, as it goes. The fact that Hotdog and I have so many ideas in common despite a wide variety of beliefs is an easy indicator of that fact.
“I cannot see that my ideals themselves will or could ever change” - I’ll remind you of that sentence in 10 years time, if we’re still in touch. My father has a saying - at 18, you think you know everything; at 21, you know you know everything; at 40, you know you know nothing. Granted, you’re very intelligent and well-informed for a 21-year-old, and I’d never accuse you of “knowing that you know it all”. I daresay the basis for a lot of your “ideals” will remain the same; but, sure as night follows day, you’ll change your mind on many, many things during the rest of your life; the subtleties of your “ideals” and how you put them into practice will change likewise.
Fair enough. Although you should be reminded that in 10 years’ time, any sort of conversation between you and I will be largely based on you prostrating yourself at my feet and bringing me gifts of gold doubloons to fill my swimming pool. If you can fit in an ‘I told you so’ between genuflections and “O Great And Wise Ruler”s, I’m sure I’ll make the effort to listen.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, LZ - how self-important do I have to BE before I can goad you into a proper argument?
No, good comeback, ma’am. Consider me deflected on this issue for 10 years.