It's certainly interesting how I tend to apply a different criterion to the same issue on a different day. Being able to simply communicate is the most important thing language does. Therefore, it is my belief that Good English is simply relative to the context that determines what criteria could be applied.
On the surface, many points of Theodore M. Bernstein’s cited by Algeo make a decent appeal. I was altogether certain that good English is English that is communicated thoroughly, clearly, and concisely – and perhaps it even is – but it is so difficult a point to uphold as it is impossible to be completely thorough all the time. That being the case, I think Algeo is asserting that good English would be all too rare for the criterion of communication to be any specification of good English. Plus, writing or speech that someone might consider illogical or unclear could be totally rational for another person, given the varying dialects even in one’s own neighborhood.
I loved the joke that Algeo makes at the beginning of this essay: “The human species has been called homo sapiens, the earthly one who knows or experiences. But we might as well be called homo judex, the judge, because an inescapable human impulse is to distinguish between good and bad.” I definitely agree with this—we humans are far more judging than we are wise. Often we only evaluate things to search for errors, we only listen to detect differences.
I thought Algoe's question of how far back in time do we go when deciding what past author's exhibited good English was very interesting. While both Austen and Poe are famous classical authors, did one exhibit good English while the other did not? The English language has evolved in countless way; therefore, is there a true way to ultimately decided of a person speaks with good English?
Sorry. This is way more than 25-30 words, but I really wanted to share my opinions about this guy.
Mr. Algeo seems like he would be a very difficult man to argue with. One particular part I found amusing was in the second paragraph of the very first page when he's talking about homo sapiens and homo judex. He claims that we, as humans, are more judgmental than wise. I found that interesting, because all throughout his essay, he criticizes authors that do not share the same opinion he does. There isn't someone there to argue back with him, so I feel like his essay was just full of him disagree with people that weren't named Theodore M. Bernstein - an author that he still criticizes. I just don't believe there's a reason to be that critical.
I love how you pointed that out, Socorra. I think it is funny how often people show that they hate intellectuals, but often we find that they are a literary critic themselves.
What I took from this essentially was the author trying to point out the fact that even though people can say what is right or wrong for English, the truth is that every individual in the end has their own standards that they live by.
When talking about what exactly is good English, I think there is a lot that is very subjective.
One criteria that I feel like I learned a lot about and was able to draw more connections from is the scholarly criteria. This criterion reminds me a lot of the method of argument, appeal to authority.
As appealing as English may be, it does suffer from its literary critics. Their methods pertaining to analytical and critical writing can cause the ‘Grammar War.’ Sure, we need basic critical and theoretical methodologies in our comprehension of English, but words from the English dictionary is open to form, discourse and subjectivity. Based on interpretations and norms, we can support our reasoning and effects from said topic.
The main purpose of language is to convey meaning. So long as language can efficiently convey meaning and be understood, it shouldn’t matter whether it obeys every grammar rule ever imposed by a fifth-grade English teacher or not. It gets the job done, doesn’t it?
In passing, the writer here points out that some authors are examples of fame and lack a true knowledge of good English, but I personally feel that when an author reaches a level of renown like many authors listed in this work, if they challenge what we understand as good English, then they have taken part in remolding what good English will become for future generations.
My continued question is why some dialects are held in a higher regard than others. If a logical conclusion can be reached through the words a person uses, isn’t it good English?
According to Algeo "good English" is not how broad your vocabulary is, it is simply how well you can convey your message and feelings to another person. What I have gathered from this concept is that one does not have to speak eloquently, but rather make sure they successfully get their point across to whoever they are communicating with.
. I found the Elitist Criterion interesting because in the United States, we do look up to public figures and the way they speak. For example, the word “selfie” didn’t really start taking off until the famous Kim Kardashian started using the term. Then everyone thought it was a great word and there was a song about it, and now it has become normalized in our vernacular. Similarly, we always talk about how great or horribly the Presidential nominees and candidates speak during the debates. I think, in a way, these examples help set our “standard” that Algeo talks about.
It's certainly interesting how I tend to apply a different criterion to the same issue on a different day. Being able to simply communicate is the most important thing language does. Therefore, it is my belief that Good English is simply relative to the context that determines what criteria could be applied.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, many points of Theodore M. Bernstein’s cited by Algeo make a decent appeal. I was altogether certain that good English is English that is communicated thoroughly, clearly, and concisely – and perhaps it even is – but it is so difficult a point to uphold as it is impossible to be completely thorough all the time. That being the case, I think Algeo is asserting that good English would be all too rare for the criterion of communication to be any specification of good English. Plus, writing or speech that someone might consider illogical or unclear could be totally rational for another person, given the varying dialects even in one’s own neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteI loved the joke that Algeo makes at the beginning of this essay: “The human species has been called homo sapiens, the earthly one who knows or experiences. But we might as well be called homo judex, the judge, because an inescapable human impulse is to distinguish between good and bad.” I definitely agree with this—we humans are far more judging than we are wise. Often we only evaluate things to search for errors, we only listen to detect differences.
ReplyDeleteI thought Algoe's question of how far back in time do we go when deciding what past author's exhibited good English was very interesting. While both Austen and Poe are famous classical authors, did one exhibit good English while the other did not? The English language has evolved in countless way; therefore, is there a true way to ultimately decided of a person speaks with good English?
ReplyDeleteSorry. This is way more than 25-30 words, but I really wanted to share my opinions about this guy.
ReplyDeleteMr. Algeo seems like he would be a very difficult man to argue with. One particular part I found amusing was in the second paragraph of the very first page when he's talking about homo sapiens and homo judex. He claims that we, as humans, are more judgmental than wise. I found that interesting, because all throughout his essay, he criticizes authors that do not share the same opinion he does. There isn't someone there to argue back with him, so I feel like his essay was just full of him disagree with people that weren't named Theodore M. Bernstein - an author that he still criticizes. I just don't believe there's a reason to be that critical.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI love how you pointed that out, Socorra. I think it is funny how often people show that they hate intellectuals, but often we find that they are a literary critic themselves.
DeleteWhat I took from this essentially was the author trying to point out the fact that even though people can say what is right or wrong for English, the truth is that every individual in the end has their own standards that they live by.
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about what exactly is good English, I think there is a lot that is very subjective.
ReplyDeleteOne criteria that I feel like I learned a lot about and was able to draw more connections from is the scholarly criteria. This criterion reminds me a lot of the method of argument, appeal to authority.
As appealing as English may be, it does suffer from its literary critics. Their methods pertaining to analytical and critical writing can cause the ‘Grammar War.’ Sure, we need basic critical and theoretical methodologies in our comprehension of English, but words from the English dictionary is open to form, discourse and subjectivity. Based on interpretations and norms, we can support our reasoning and effects from said topic.
ReplyDeleteThe main purpose of language is to convey meaning. So long as language can efficiently convey meaning and be understood, it shouldn’t matter whether it obeys every grammar rule ever imposed by a fifth-grade English teacher or not. It gets the job done, doesn’t it?
ReplyDelete(Emily Callan)
In passing, the writer here points out that some authors are examples of fame and lack a true knowledge of good English, but I personally feel that when an author reaches a level of renown like many authors listed in this work, if they challenge what we understand as good English, then they have taken part in remolding what good English will become for future generations.
ReplyDeleteCody Baggerly
My continued question is why some dialects are held in a higher regard than others. If a logical conclusion can be reached through the words a person uses, isn’t it good English?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Algeo "good English" is not how broad your vocabulary is, it is simply how well you can convey your message and feelings to another person. What I have gathered from this concept is that one does not have to speak eloquently, but rather make sure they successfully get their point across to whoever they are communicating with.
ReplyDelete. I found the Elitist Criterion interesting because in the United States, we do look up to public figures and the way they speak. For example, the word “selfie” didn’t really start taking off until the famous Kim Kardashian started using the term. Then everyone thought it was a great word and there was a song about it, and now it has become normalized in our vernacular. Similarly, we always talk about how great or horribly the Presidential nominees and candidates speak during the debates. I think, in a way, these examples help set our “standard” that Algeo talks about.
ReplyDelete