Implications for Social Meaning Conveyed Linguistically
I have always been somewhat of a stickler when it comes to grammar. I cringe when people misuse good and well, I and me, or she/he and her/him. Double negatives send me through the roof! I cannot resist correcting such an atrocity of language. This is most certainly a behavior ingrained in me due to my upbringing, which encompasses implications about me socially. My father corrects me to this day if I make the slightest grammatical error, which he now follows with “Shouldn’t an English teacher know better?� However, this drastically sets my family apart from my future in-laws who use “ain’t�, and do all of the above mentioned grammatical irritations in my presence. However, my fiancé knows better than to offend my sensitive ears, unless intentionally trying to irritate me of course. The differences in the formality of linguistic styles between the two families reflect a variance in the level of formality within our familial structures and cultural upbringings. Not only are my in-laws more informal, but they also lived in Texas for many years. Their diction reflects these social aspects of their background.
My note of caution is that these variations in language cannot found certain social assumptions, especially those pertaining to prejudice about a person’s socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, or even level of education (professors randomly make mistakes, as do my classmates and I). Colloquialisms can be adapted or altered based upon geographic location (like my in-laws who moved a lot) that don’t necessarily go away because they’re no longer colloquial. This is especially true if you consciously continue to use them. Spend time in the South, and you’re saying “Y’all� before you know it! My point is that some hear their “mistakes� and choose to use unconventional grammar instead. The inability to use or apply traditional grammar does NOT equate that a person is not educated, or is of lower socio-economic status etc. I think this especially applies to non-native speakers of languages. It is interesting that they may understand more about a subject than I ever will, but they cannot communicate with me about that subject in a mutually understood language. Thus, you really cannot make character assumptions based upon social meanings implied by linguistics. However, please, please, please do not use double negatives!
I really don't think people got this entry! It is supposed to be a joke about my uptightness (and my family's) in contrast to my in-laws. Obviously, I love them and my fiancé despite their grammar!!! (JOKE) My point was that language is RELATIVE to how one chooses to facilitate it no matter where one is physically, socially or educationally. Insinuating anything more about a person than your opinion about his/her vocalized grammar usage as a manner of speech is not a valid evaluation of that person at all (i.e. my in-laws!!!)
The last line about double negatives is a joke.
Comments
I undersand your point about not judging people's intellect based on their language because they may choose to talk that way, knowing full well the proper way to talk. Or they may be in the habit of speaking that way due to their upbringing, and therefore may not want to change, or find it hard to break the habit. Yet, I still think language can be a sure sign of where one is from and also how educated one is. You don't like double negatives because you have been taught and educated to the fact that it is not proper. But, for some people that have not had that stressed in their education may not be so adament about it. That reveals a difference in education, maybe not the extent of education, but the specific field of education. Either way I think language can distinguish class and educational background, but there are exceptions that need to be taken in to account, like you mentioned.
Posted by: Tami Swanson | February 24, 2006 11:43 AM
what's wrong with "y'all"? since the language has drop the thou/you distinction, y'all (or its non-contracted from "you all") is very useful to distinguish between addressing an individual and a group.
Posted by: aaron bruenger | February 24, 2006 11:01 PM
In many ways I agree with you as far as, the way language is spoken
I know many well educated black people who will respond properly around the right crowd of educated peers, however when they are around people who tend to speak unconventional grammer they would adapt. Many ethinic groups who have grow up in Minnesota speak proper english (what I mean by that is if you were talking on the telephone to this person, you would assume that the person was Caucasian based on their linguistic speech pattern. However, when it is all said and done, no matter how educated one is, if communication cannot be expressed then mutually understanding is at a standstill.
Posted by: Adrienne Lee | February 24, 2006 11:53 PM
i agree that language reflects educational background. i believe that misused grammar represents two things: either the user knows their grammatical erroneousness and chooses to speak that way out of convenience or the desire to fit into any given culture / social setting, or that the user does not understand that they speak without using traditional rules of grammar. while it is safe to say you can't possibly know a person's educational background or intelligence level by judging the way they produce their sentences, you can make suppositions about whether or not they know better, and what kind of cultural / social standard they are trying to meet.
Posted by: ally carey | February 26, 2006 7:06 PM
Well, ok, just tell us how does one "do" an "irritation" and how does a "geographic location" "go away?" And why does passive voice bother you less ("Colloquialisms can be adapted")than double-negatives? My point being: Is there a perspective from which your usage can be evaluated? Might your usage be as chafing to a Creole as theirs to you?
Posted by: joe pastoor | February 26, 2006 7:15 PM
What irritates me most is people who consistently feel the need to correct other peoples grammar. I'm irritated by it because when someone asks me how I am doing and I respond with "I'm good" and the first thing out of their mouth is a correction I often wonder if they are more interested in making sure I know I made a grammatical mistake or in how I am and why.
An example of this can be seen from my job. I work at the Gap. Part of being on the "floor" (i.e. floating around folding clothes and asking customers if they need help) is to greet customers when they enter the store. Nine times out of ten a customer responds with "I'm good" instead of "I'm well" when asked how they are doing today. When I ask a customer how they are doing I really want to know so that I am able to help them find what they are looking for the best I can. Correcting them would not only offend them, but make them feel very unvalued in our store.
The same attitude can be applied to conversations with friends and family. If a friend or family member comes to you after a really bad day or they come to you with really awesome news remember that it is important that the person you are listening to feels that you are interested in WHAT they are saying MORE than in HOW they are saying it.
Posted by: Michele Thompson | February 27, 2006 10:48 AM