More on the difficult craft
Two quotations for the day, the first moderately flippant, the second dead serious, from the chapter “The Language Mavens” in Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct:
“[O]nce introduced, a prescriptive rule is very hard to eradicate, no matter how ridiculous. Inside the educational and writing establishments, the rules survive by the same dynamic that perpetuates ritual genital mutilations and college fraternity hazing: I had to go through it and am none the worse, so why should you have it any easier?”
“The aspect of language use that is most worth changing is the clarity and style of written prose.* Expository writing requires language to express far more complex trains of thought than it was biologically designed to do. Inconsistencies caused by limitations of short-term memory and planning, unnoticed in conversation, are not as tolerable when presented on a page that is to be perused more leisurely. Also, unlike a conventional partner, a reader will rarely share enough background assumptions to interpolate all the missing premises that make language comprehensible. Overcoming one’s natural egocentrism and trying to anticipate the knowledge state of a generic reader at every stage of the exposition is one of the most important tasks in writing well. All this makes writing a difficult craft that must be mastered through practice, instruction, feedback, and—probably most important—intensive exposure to good examples.”
*I suspect that Those People are not aware of such an attitude among descriptivists.







Comments
Am I alone in finding the first quote not moderately flippant but crude and unpleasant?
Posted by: Picky | August 22, 2011 3:44 AM
Right there with you, Picky. I just didn't know how to express myself as well as you did on the matter.
Posted by: Tim | August 22, 2011 10:54 AM
Yes.
Posted by: Jim Callahan | August 22, 2011 11:48 AM
I think 'flippant' in this case refers to the offhand way Pinker delivers the crude analogy of unpleasant social activities with prescriptive rules.
Pinker is saying that some things are perpetuated despite there being little discernible benefit from their continued existence.
Although the activites are pretty nauseating, surely we can stomach the discussion of them, and their use as analogies.
I feel a great affinity with the second quote. It is quite good.
Posted by: Bender | August 22, 2011 10:19 PM
I'm afraid not, Bender. He's not using an analogy with activities that bring "little discernible benefit" but with an activity that brings appalling vicious damage. Certainly we can stomach discussion of it; it is a more important subject for discussion than the increasingly boring mauling over prescriptivism. But this use is (I think) cheap and vulgar. (It's a fascinating book, though.)
Posted by: Picky | August 23, 2011 3:21 AM
You mean write for the reader?
Posted by: camille laplume | August 27, 2011 1:09 AM