Works Cited
Kamm, Oliver. "There Is No 'Proper English'" WSJ. 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
Oliver Kamm, a editorial writer and columnist for the Times of London, expresses his very clear stance on the existence of "proper English" in his expressively named Wall Street Journal Article "There Is No ‘Proper English’". Kamm's views are very simple, stop scolding minor details in grammar and accept that if people speak a certain way then that's the right way to speak. Kamm challenges those who prescribe grammar rules saying, "The grammatical rules invoked by pedants aren’t real rules of grammar at all. They are, at best, just stylistic conventions: An example would be the use of a double negative (I can’t get no satisfaction)." I personally think this is a very poor example that Kamm uses. While he claims that proposed grammatical rules are at best stylistic conventions, the example he give involving double negatives should make readers question if Kamm to broadly accepts how people speak as the right way to speak. Double negatives are not just a matter of stylistic conventions there is much room for misunderstanding caused their use. Double negatives are at their core logically faulty. In his example, "I can't get no satisfaction" what is being said if you logically obey the two negative modifiers is the person can get satisfaction but cannot be dissatisfaction. This is a serious problem when what is said need to be clear. How is one supposed to know when the write is following logic in the use of double negatives or just means a single negative? When communication is time sensitive or has serious repercussions the meaning of the message needs to be constantly clear. So while Kamm does go on to raise many valid points readers should not automatically take for granted what he says. Additionally, Kamm should consider revising to what extend what ever comes out of people's mouth is actually the right way to speak.
Works Cited Kamm, Oliver. "There Is No 'Proper English'" WSJ. 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
3 Comments
4/5/2015 03:22:43 pm
I find it interesting that you state that double negatives are logically faulty. However I ask why? Is it because you believe to be or because the grammar that you have grown up with says it is? During one of our courses Dr. Suhr-Sytsma gave us a document about African American English which addresses double negatives and why they are infact correct in their own way. The document states that it provides emphasis on the statement and also points to other languages --such as Italian - that use this form of writing. For instance: "I haven't never owed nothing to no one", would be considered incorrect bu most when in fact in its own way it is a correct form of writing. Therefore I ask again how does one state which way of speaking, writing, or communication is the correct way or the standard way?
Reply
4/6/2015 03:27:50 am
I think Gloria made a very good point. When I hear that phrase, I hear it in the voice of someone who is disappointed and worn out, sighing "I can't get no satisfaction." The meaning comes across clearly without even hearing the person out loud or seeing their body language. Using context clues in writing, it should be easy to see what the author means. When we pick apart language so much that we ignore the true meaning, we should consider Kamm's main point- "stop scolding minor details in grammar and accept that if people speak a certain way then that's the right way to speak."
Reply
Jacob Ardis
4/6/2015 06:00:47 am
The following is a brief citation from a Wikipedia article on logic tables:
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis is where I, a rising freshman at Emory University, blog about multilingualism. Archives
April 2015
Categories |