1

المرجع الالكتروني للمعلوماتية

Grammar

Tenses

Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous

Past

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous

Past Simple

Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous

Passive and Active

Parts Of Speech

Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective

Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pre Position

Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition

Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

Interjections

Express calling interjection

Grammar Rules

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Semantics

Pragmatics

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced

English Language : Linguistics : Linguistics fields :

Linguistic purism

المؤلف:  David Hornsby

المصدر:  Linguistics A complete introduction

الجزء والصفحة:  14-1

2023-12-09

532

Linguistic purism

So ingrained is the habit of making linguistic value judgements that it can be difficult to distinguish descriptive statements from prescriptive ones. To a linguist, a grammatical sentence is one that a native speaker either produces or accepts as possible in his/her language. Purists, on the other hand, see only a prestige or standard variety as acceptable, and condemn transgressions against its norms. Because purists often present prescriptive rules as if they were descriptive ones, statements like ‘X is not English’ can be ambiguous: they appear to mean ‘No English speaker would ever say X’, but often in practice mean ‘Some English speakers do say X, but I don’t think they should do’, which is a different claim entirely. Purists, moreover, often justify their strictures in terms that have little to do with language, as the following examples of prescriptive English rules will demonstrate.

‘“He hasn’t got none” is ungrammatical.’

The word ‘ungrammatical’ here is immediately problematic, as there are clearly many English speakers whose non-standard grammars allow such constructions, which is why we regularly hear examples of constructions like this. The justification for this stricture in standard English, however, is that it employs a double negative, which amounts to a positive, so this really means ‘he does have some’.

 

Purists’ reasoning here is appealing: in mathematics, taking away a negative is the same as adding a positive, so the two negatives might be seen to cancel each other out in this sentence. And it’s certainly true that this sentence could be construed in that way, though this would normally require a marked stress pattern (He hasn’t got none). But this superficial logic in fact begs a number of questions. Are languages generally like mathematics? Should they be?

 

Unlike mathematics, grammar is riddled with idiosyncrasies that defy ‘logic’ in any conventional sense; grammatical rules, moreover, are subject to variation and change, whereas mathematical formulae express (or purport to express) logical truths that are universal and timeless (e.g. A = πr2 , where A = area of a circle, r = radius and π = approximately 3.14). So it’s odd, to say the least, that language should be evaluated according to mathematical criteria, and intuitively unlikely that a principle like ‘two negatives make a positive’ will have much importance cross-linguistically. In fact, the double negative construction turns out to be very common not just in non-standard English dialects, but also in the standard varieties of many major languages. No one complains about their use in French (je ne sais pas) or Spanish (yo no tengo nada), and double negatives occur regularly in Russian, Italian, Hungarian, Arabic, Breton and Portuguese, to give but a few examples. The double negative stricture is a good example of an arbitrary prescriptive rule being dressed up in logical clothes.

‘You can’t split an infinitive in English.’

 

The objection here is to placing an adverb between the two parts of an English infinitive, e.g. in to generally agree. Again, such structures are commonly used, as Star Trek fans of a certain age will recall:

These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life, and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before! (Emphasis William Shatner’s.)

 

As Captain James T. Kirk opened each new episode with those immortal words, legions of prescriptive grammarians would rage in their armchairs at the incalculable damage inflicted on the nation’s youth by such grammatical barbarism: ‘boldly to go’ or ‘to go boldly’, fine, but ‘to boldly go’? Never.

 

The reason for their ire goes back to the eighteenth century, and an analogy drawn by grammarians between Latin and English. English infinitives supported by the preposition to were required to remain fused as single unit, like their one-word Latin counterparts, e.g. amare (to love). The grammar of English was for many years described using the same categories as those applied to Latin, and many of our prescriptive rules (e.g. that one should not end a sentence with a preposition, or that one should say ‘It is I’ rather than ‘It is me’) derive ultimately from Latin. But it’s patently nonsensical to require one language to follow the rules of another, and English is very different from Latin in almost every respect. Unlike Latin, English doesn’t have (among other things) noun gender, case marking of nouns (apart, arguably, from genitive ’s), adjective agreement or a fully marked verb paradigm, so it seems perverse in any case to focus on this particular construction.

 

Once again, the superficial logic behind a prescriptive rule is based ultimately on a failure to compare like with like: double negatives are condemned on the basis that ‘language should be like mathematics’, while split infinitives are ruled out on the grounds that ‘English should be like Latin’. Linguists prefer to focus on what native speakers of English or other languages actually do say, and to leave prescriptive judgements – and their often spurious justifications – to others.

EN

تصفح الموقع بالشكل العمودي