Chapter 5: Is written grammar better than spoken grammar?

Summarize:
Chapter 5 dismantles the myth that written grammar reigns supreme over spoken
grammar. Instead, the author argues they exist on a spectrum, each with strengths and
weaknesses.
Spoken language shines in its ease of acquisition for children and its focus on
building relationships. It's fast-paced, demanding immediate listening and response,
which can pose challenges for second language learners who lack the ability to get
immediate clarification from listeners. Written language, on the other hand,
prioritizes conveying information, though it lacks the immediacy of spoken
interaction. However, advancements in technology and the evolving nature of online
text are narrowing the gap between impermanent speech and permanent writing.
The author also finds that complex noun phrases, especially those used as subjects,
are rarely used in spoken language because planning and producing them requires a
high cognitive effort. In addition, spoken language is the breeding ground for new
grammatical uses. Unlike written language, which focuses on correctness, spoken
language is a relaxed environment where people experiment freely.
Ultimately, the author Andreea S.Calude argues there's no inherently "better" form.
Spoken grammar excels at building relationships and fostering emotions, while
written grammar prioritizes conveying clear information. Both forms serve distinct
purposes and are effective in their own right.
Reflection:
Chapter 5 of "The Question of Language" made me realize how much texting and
social media are blurring the lines between spoken and written language. In the past,
written communication seemed formal and permanent, like a letter carved in stone or
on leaves. On the other hand, spoken language is fleeting and intimate like a
conversation.
Nowadays, with emojis and abbreviations popping up everywhere in text and online
conversations, written language feels more relaxed. It can convey emotions and
humor just like spoken language, or add some emotional stickers, people can even
reread or share what they sent. Sometimes formal text is clear and precise but lacks
emotional nuance, so voice messages have brought spoken elements such as tone and
nuance into the written word.
This blurring is both interesting and a little unsettling. However, I also found some
people feel worried about this d. Is this a breakdown of proper grammar, or the birth
of a new, more dynamic form of communication? The chapter suggests it might be
both. Spoken language may be where grammatical innovations happen, and perhaps
technology is creating a space for these innovations to flourish in writing.
While I still appreciate the clarity of formal writing, I find myself using this new
blend in everyday communication. It's a testament to the adaptability of language,
constantly evolving to meet the needs of its users. I wonder whether the future see a
unified mode of communication that incorporates elements of both speech and
writing. Chapter 5 has sparked my curiosity to see how technology will continue to
shape the way we use language.
Chapter 06: Is language change good or bad?
Summarize:
Chapter 6 of "Questions of Language" dismantles the idea that language change is
inherently good or bad. Contrary to popular belief that language change is sudden and
caused by specific events, it's a gradual process. Social, political, and economic
factors can influence language change, which can occur in vocabulary, pronunciation,
grammar, or meaning. Instead, it argues that the value of a language change hinges on
its impact on communication.
The chapter shifts the focus from subjective judgments to objective consequences.
Positive changes make communication clearer and more efficient, while negative
ones hinder understanding. However, the relationship isn't always straightforward. A
change that simplifies pronunciation might make one word harder to distinguish from
another or even create confusion.
Additionally, two authors Lyle Campbell and Russell Barlow explored sound
changes which are natural alterations in pronunciation, and analogy, the process of
aligning words based on similarities. Both can introduce irregularities in grammar but
also have the potential to resolve them. However, these processes can have both
positive and negative consequences. For example, sound changes can eliminate
grammatical markers, potentially making a language easier to learn but reducing the
information conveyed in a sentence.
Ultimately, the author suggests that judgments about "good" or "bad" language
change stem from social preferences. Its effects depend on the specific situation and
whether it aids or hinders clear communication.
Reflection:
Chapter 6 of “The Language Question” changed my idea of “appropriate” language.
For so long, I believed clear communication hinged on following a rigid set of rules,
however, this chapter helped me realize how these rules can be subjective and even
influenced by the surrounding society.
The chapter exposed the subjectivity behind these rules. The fact that some of the
rules commonly apply, such as avoiding prepositions at the end of sentences, and
these innovations were only invented relatively recently, is surprising. It highlighted
the dynamic nature of language and the idea that "correctness" is a moving target, not
a fixed destination.
However, the most unsettling aspect was the power dynamic exposed by
prescriptivism. The chapter pointed out how these rules can be used to judge
someone's language negatively, even if their communication is perfectly effective.
This emphasis on social preference over clear understanding made me consider the
importance of a descriptive approach to language. Focusing on social preferences for
grammar (prescriptive approach) can sometimes hinder clear understanding. Instead,
by taking a descriptive approach and understanding how language is actually used,
we can better ensure clear communication.
Finally, effective communication still remains essential. On the other hand, chapter 6
made me question the role of prescriptive rules. Perhaps effective communication is
more dependent on understanding context and audience than following a rigid set of
grammar dictates. Therefore, I believe that focusing on the message itself is more
important than policing the delivery.