<p>Hippo: I hadn't been aware that Bush had published any academic papers, never mind 200 academic papers.</p>
<p>So who should be writing the questions? People with 200+ papers published? Answer my questionnn!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't understand why you regard the writers of these articles as infallible sources, experts on the English language, whereas you view the test-makers -- no, not the test-makers themselves, but those who formulate the rules on which the questions are based -- as "Latin-fetishist inkhorn users." Where do you draw the line between the two? The more liberal, the more accurate? Would the best linguist be someone who accepts every colloquialism as "correct"?</p>
<p>If there is "no subjectivity" to the standard-ness of language, who's right? Who is the sole possessor of the absolute truth of the English language?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A common misassumption about the field of linguistics.</p>
<p>Firstly, you assume that individuals formulate the rules.</p>
<p>Language is an evolutionarily-adapted feature of human thought. Evolution has made it such that without schooling, and unless damage is suffered to the Broca's area of the brain, or are born feral, children acquire all of the non-suprasegmental features of their language by about age six or seven, and all the suprasegmental features of their about language by twelve. Even if they are born feral, or are not given any language instruction by their parents, as long as they are left alone with other children, a language with its own set of grammar will spontaneously develop. If you were to put such a language product to analytic tools developed by information theory, you will find the complexity of that new language will correspond to the modern languages. Here, we have developed tools to quantify the complexity of any given language, and linguists have found that the complexity of any natural language always tends toward a constant. </p>
<p>Of course, linguists still need to develop more precise and more objective tools and formulas to make such measurements, because if you use "brute" compression analysis for example, you will find that English has slightly more information entropy than Chinese. But anyway I do digress.</p>
<p>The fact is, the rules of grammar are naturally and spontaneously developed. I suggest you read the Language Instinct by an author called Pinker -- it's a fascinating read, describing both the magical miracle of childhood language acquisition and addressing common misconceptions about language. </p>
<p>The experts I cite do not "make" the rules -- they simply describe the rules -- rules that have been established by the "market" (to use an analogy from economics) of the English language. The community of speakers make the rules, and the rules always tend a constant in the short-run, because language belongs to that weird sort of class where the utility of the object increases the more it used, but in the long-run, language tends to drift. There are some fascinating language change that combine both mathematics (with especially heavy use of statistics, linear algebra and calculus) and biology. You can look them up on Google Scholar. It is this process of change that can make whether something is erroneous "fuzzy". Whether something is erroneous is not however, "hazy" -- there is no subjectivity to it, because the measurement is objective. The error of that measurement however, may vary.</p>
<p>In this case, the experts I cite, who are descriptivists, rely on well-known rules of language that have been established by investigation of corpora and speech. That is, there are universal observable constraints on the English language, and where those constraints intersect with morphology, syntax, phonology and so forth, we call those constraints "grammar". When a scientist says the adult human has 206 bones, he is not making up that rule -- that rule comes from observation. You know -- observation -- what linguists do.</p>
<p>In this case, the authority of the linguists of Language Log to make such observations with authority and confidence comes from the fact that they are eminent researchers in their field. Just look some of them up on ratemyprofessor.com. Mark Liberman apparently is a horrible lecturer to first-year students but he is "brilliant in his field." ;) </p>
<p>
[quote]
Where do you draw the line between the two? The more liberal, the more accurate? Would the best linguist be someone who accepts every colloquialism as "correct"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no line. The best linguist is one who makes the most accurate observations.</p>
<p>I like how you see colloquialisms as "less grammatical". Colloquialisms you see, belong to different registers of English, and I suppose it also depends how you define "colloquialism".</p>
<p>In any case, the argument for singular-they and syneis is clear: it is not a colloquialism. It has been used formally by established writers -- unless you want to bash Shakespeare in the process -- and it is clearly a non-error.</p>
<p>Saying otherwise is like saying English descended from Latin, which is clearly not true. Why do we know this not to be the case? Because it flies in the face of historical evidence, mathematics and the comparative method, which establish that English is a Germanic language.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where do you draw the line between the two? The more liberal, the more accurate? Would the best linguist be someone who accepts every colloquialism as "correct"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>College Board should be in the least, be advised by a Usage Panel. You know, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, and all.</p>
<p>Speaking of grammar: In the second-last paragraph of post 23, I added syneis as an edit after the "singular-they", since they are related concepts, but forgot to change the agreement of the pronouns following. Now the forum software won't let me change my post. :(</p>
<p>As a further note Poseur, in this Language</a> Log post, Pullum describes some of the processes involved in making observations about the grammar of English before presenting them to the public.</p>
<p>Please use the "quote=whoever" tag so we know whose post you are referring to (at least for the first one of a list). I will respond to your concerns when I have time; it should be later tonight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I know. Especially when it was just meant to throw a point out, rather than try to defend it.</p>
<p>Huh? The author is not as important as the content, but anyway....</p>
<p>Its primarily so people reading the thread have an easier time following the course of the discussion.</p>
<p>so interesting</p>
<p>The English language is governed by a set of concrete rules by which the SAT abides. Certain people have learned a faulty, colloquial version of English that does not necessarily conform to those rules. Simply because those people constitute a majority or significant minority of English speakers does not make them right; consequently, the test should not be altered in order to perpetuate such ignorance. The SAT is a standardized exam; as such, it must be based upon a premise that is universally acceptable. While many people may communicate quite clearly through their own "spontaneously developed" rules of grammar, the SAT does not test your ability to create your own grammatical rules, however effective they may be -- it tests your knowledge of English grammar. If the rules of English grammar are revised to accommodate new, incorrect manners of speech, then the SAT will subsequently change. But until then, it should remain as is.</p>
<p>relatively stable rules of a standard dialect != concrete rules.</p>
<p>Your post goes against all accepted theories of linguistics. Want to publish theories on the aether and phlogiston too?</p>
<p>
[quote]
While many people may communicate quite clearly through their own "spontaneously developed" rules of grammar, the SAT does not test your ability to create your own grammatical rules, however effective they may be -- it tests your knowledge of English grammar.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then prithee, how do you define when the language changes?</p>
<p>Governments do not change languages -- the language community does.</p>
<p>How language changes and competing variants come into being (as well as die in competition) is the subject of various models being currently tested at the UPenn department of linguistics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Certain people have learned a faulty, colloquial version of English that does not necessarily conform to those rules.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or maybe you mean they have learnt a faulty version of English? When did you vulgar people learn the lazy variant of putting a voiced dental after a nasal or a lateral liquid just to regularise your verb paradigms? Huh?</p>
<p>Except of course, "learnt" and "learned" are competing allophones.</p>
<p>When you have basically implied in your argument is linguistic</a> fallacy.</p>
<p>If you are to compete against all established theories of language theory, even prescriptivist manuals as laid out in Fowler, then I would like to see some qqualifications. Peer-reviewed publications. After all, even Shakespeare used tthe singular they -- not out of mistake, I might add. </p>
<p>
[quote]
While many people may communicate quite clearly through their own "spontaneously developed" rules of grammar
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nearly all grammatical concepts have been spontaneously developed.</p>
<p>The -ed form was spontaneously developed. Every single inflection in English, every single word, was spontaneously developed, one way or another.</p>
<p>The only items that aren't spontaneously developed are the really conservative ones that can be observed in all facets of any human language, like the fact that you only have 6 different varieties of how verbs relate an object to a subject (for all languages). These form the basis for "universal grammar". </p>
<p>
[quote]
If the rules of English grammar are revised to accommodate new, incorrect manners of speech,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You fallaciously assume that an individual, or an authority, "revises" the rules of English grammar. This ignores all biological and linguistic fact.</p>
<p>I urge you to actually use some science on this matter, not the irrational version of planned economics for language.</p>
<p>In fact, there are evolutionary models on how language develops out of protolanguage, and these can be used not only for new word innovation and creole formation, but for any language. Modelling a community of 100 speakers, you can see how language customs and standards diffuse and compete among the community, due to a linguistic form of natural selection.</p>
<p>The "standard form" is in this case the linguistic version of a genetic "wild type" -- I trust you remember your elementary biology.</p>
<p>Also please note, linguists have standards for what is "standard" or "well-formed" speech, but we use scientific means of evaluating so. The community as a whole defines the rules, much as the market as a whole determines a market price. Equilibrium.</p>
<p>What you also lack is a framework in which to describe "correct" or "standard". Linguists have such a framework in place, in order to determine what is the "standard wild type" for every little detail of language, accommodating every change to the language, year by year. Such change to the "wild type" (or replacement thereof) can be modelled. Thus, we find that singular they was already standard in the 16th to 17th century... </p>
<p>Notably, you have failed to establish such another framework in its place that would explain how authorities determine the rules of a language.</p>
<p>The fact that the SAT is a standardised exam has nothing to do with it -- that simply affects how people are graded relative to each other. Unless you are taking an exam on dialectical variants, all English exams, standardised or not, test the standard "wild type" of their day.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Then prithee, how do you define when the language changes?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Defining the exact moment at which a change occurs in a language (or, more precisely, the rules governing its proper usage) is irrelevant, since the SAT doesn't test concepts over which there is any significant amount of dispute. There is no point in time before which something would be seen by the SAT as incorrect and after which it would be seen as perfectly justified. However, in general, the rules of a language tend to change when reputable publications, whose purpose is to enumerate such rules, decide to formalize an alteration.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Or maybe you mean they have learnt a faulty version of English?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>No, I don't. I'm not disputing that languages can evolve over time or that various conjugations of a particular verb may be equally correct (for example, "dived" and "dove").</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
After all, even Shakespeare used the singular they -- not out of mistake, I might add.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Many popular literary figures have (intentionally) disregarded grammatical principles in their writings. Simply because a famous figure broke a rule doesn't render the rule invalid.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Nearly all grammatical concepts have been spontaneously developed.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but spontaneous development certainly doesn't imply grammatical correctness. You can't conflate the two terms to argue for the validity of any form of spontaneously developed grammar.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
You fallaciously assume that an individual, or an authority, "revises" the rules of English grammar. This ignores all biological and linguistic fact.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>We all "spontaneously develop" our own sense of morality; we learn at an early age that stealing and killing are bad whereas sharing and helping are good. The government can't alter these basic principles of ours through legislation. However, it can devise a legal code that enforces a certain standard of morality, although some of us may disagree with it. Nonetheless, if we break a law, we go to jail; it doesn't matter whether or not we agree with it or whether or not that law conforms to our moral compass. Similarly, if you break a grammatical "law" on the SAT, you'll obtain a lower score, regardless of whether or not your response was correct according to your own "spontaneously developed" grammatical ideas. Moreover, if enough people believe that a law is antiquated, it can be changed; for example, abortion, gay marriage, and universal suffrage are more commonly accepted than in previous centuries. Obviously, their morality hasn't changed over time, only our attitudes towards them. Like language, our sense of morals can evolve. However, it takes the passage of a law in order to uphold these new moral tenets. Similarly, grammatical references must be edited to reflect our transforming grammatical ideas before such changes can be enacted on the SAT.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Notably, you have failed to establish such another framework in its place that would explain how authorities determine the rules of a language.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Really? Are you unaware of how the "authorities" determine the questions on the SAT? Or are you simply constructing a straw-man argument to refute the view that King George III determined exactly how each of us speaks English? I have no problem with such an evolutionary model of how language develops; I'm simply stating that the SAT should follow the extant, formalized rules of grammar rather than incorrect, colloquial versions.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The fact that the SAT is a standardised exam has nothing to do with it -- that simply affects how people are graded relative to each other.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>No, it also suggests that there is some universally-applied standard upon which the examination is based. This standard happens to be the academically-accepted grammatical rules upon which proper English is based, not some ill-defined vernacular that you might overhear on the street.</p>
<p>Notably, you have failed to establish a framework for judging what is standard and what is not.</p>
<p>Singular they is not non-standard -- in fact, it's been part of standard English for a very very long time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
since the SAT doesn't test concepts over which there is any significant amount of dispute.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then please see the first two example questions quoted in Liberman's article.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many popular literary figures have (intentionally) disregarded grammatical principles in their writings. Simply because a famous figure broke a rule doesn't render the rule invalid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Define "grammatical rule".</p>
<p>Linguists have a precise definition for grammar. </p>
<p>In fact, I do not think Shakespeare "intentionally" broke it so much as it was the most natural construction to make. </p>
<p>Also, you are making the argument that, "the breaking of the rule was poetic/artistic licence."</p>
<p>Language</a> Log Clarity, choice, and evidence</p>
<p>But see, when you break a grammatical rule, your intention is usually to jar the reader or call the reader to subtle attention about some fact. One person who has simultaneous personality disorder (an unlikely situation, but anyway, artistic licence) may alter his grammatical identity also, so you get "we is" or "I are". That is poetic licence.</p>
<p>That was not Shakespeare's intention when he used singular they.</p>
<p>In fact, there are ways to judge how "natural" the construction is. Mind you, there are loads of research on singular they. I suggest if you some have some stunning new innovative analysis of the situation, you contact one of your professors and publish a scholarly article immediately, because you'll become very famous.</p>
<p>Language</a> Log Prescriptivist Science
<a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/SingularThey2Table1.png%5B/url%5D">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/SingularThey2Table1.png</a></p>
<p>
In the current study, two reading-time experiments demonstrated that singular they is a cognitively efficient substitute for generic he or she, particularly when the antecedent is nonreferential. In such instances, clauses containing they were read (a) much more quickly than clauses containing a gendered pronoun that went against the gender stereotype of the antecedent, and (b) just as quickly as clauses containing a gendered pronoun that matched the stereotype of the antecedent. However, with referential antecedents, for which the gender was presumably known, clauses containing singular they were not read as quickly as clauses containing a gendered pronoun that matched the antecedent's stereotypic gender.
</p>
<p>By monitoring eye movement of test subjects who are reading passages with singular they in them, we can collect data about the cognitive processes that guide reading. Here we see that "singular they" imposes far less cognitive "excess load" than other alternatives.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but spontaneous development certainly doesn't imply grammatical correctness. You can't conflate the two terms to argue for the validity of any form of spontaneously developed grammar.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Naturally, but theoretically, if you analyse language usage (and thus development of new linguistic elements) in a population in the form of game theory (with a payoff matrix), you can define the "standard variant" to be the one which is the Evolutionary Stable Strategy. Singular they is widely accepted among the population and incurs no cognitive load -- in fact, it is the most efficient construction compared to its alternatives ("him or her", etc.), as long as SEVERAL conditions are met, such as having the correlate to a non-referential antedecent.</p>
<p>Note that there there is a scientific definition for the concept of Evolutionary Stable Strategy, but you have failed to come up with a framework that can determine what is "standard" or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm simply stating that the SAT should follow the extant, formalized rules of grammar rather than incorrect, colloquial versions
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You should be highly suspicious of any claim that the majority of native speakers do not know the grammatical rules to their own language. (Most of them may be not consciously aware of each concept they have mastered as a child -- that is, most of the knowledge is procedural knowledge that is unconscious, but they have this knowledge nonetheless.) </p>
<p>
[quote]
No, it also suggests that there is some universally-applied standard upon which the examination is based. This standard happens to be the academically-accepted grammatical rules upon which proper English is based, not some ill-defined vernacular that you might overhear on the street.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Define "correct".</p>
<p>What perhaps you mean is that street language is of a different social register; many colloquial constructions are not so much erroneous as non-formal (there is a critical difference!) </p>
<p>Note that Mark Liberman has suggested creating a Usage Panel, along with modifying the test instructions accordingly.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Collegeboard has failed to show any linguistic credentials, but all the writers of Language Log are widely-known in the linguistic community for their work and collectively have published thousands of linguistic papers. Look up any of them on Google Scholar.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the papers the Collegeboard have published (collegeboard</a> - Google Scholar)
are of the "Using the PSAT/NMSQT and course grades in predicting success in the Advanced Placement Program" type. In contrast to the works of the authors of Language Log, none of the papers have been cited by hundreds of other academics! (The number of citations a paper has, you probaby realise, is a major marker that measures peer review and acceptance.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, it takes the passage of a law in order to uphold these new moral tenets. Similarly, grammatical references must be edited to reflect our transforming grammatical ideas before such changes can be enacted on the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Try "The Cambridge Grammar of English Language". Pullum co-authored it.</p>
<p>Look up the section (on Google Books or otherwise) on singular they.</p>
<p>Mind you The Cambridge Grammar is supported by linguistic research, whereas many other style manuals are the personal opinions of the author. Critical difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, it takes the passage of a law in order to uphold these new moral tenets.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>There was no passage of law when Indo-Iranian broke away from Indo-European. Or when the present participle -ende merged with gerundive -ing. Or when Grimm's Law turned many initial unvoiced Indo-European plosives into fricatives, that then entered Common Germanic. Etc. etc. (Note that "law" here means a scientific law.)</p>
<p>I suppose we should have a passage of law to uphold new market prices as well! After the determinants of supply and demand have changed, why, the market should wait two or three years for the law to be passed before the new price reflects the new determinants!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Notably, you have failed to establish a framework for judging what is standard and what is not.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>For many languages, there are institutions that are responsible for determining what constitutes standard usage (notably, [URL=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise%5DL'Acad">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise]L'Acad</a></p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I suppose we should have a passage of law to uphold new market prices as well! After the determinants of supply and demand have changed, why, the market should wait two or three years for the law to be passed before the new price reflects the new determinants!
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Should we also use market forces to determine scientific questions? By that reasoning, the world is 10,000 years old and evolution is a flawed theory (well, at least in the US).</p>
<p>I want to give you guys both credit for arguing your points well. I have been reading your posts for the past 10 or so minutes and have found the conversation to be quite stimulating.</p>
<p>Begoner, did you look at some of my earlier posts? I think I may have some insights that were ignored, but I would be interested to hear your take on them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For many languages, there are institutions that are responsible for determining what constitutes standard usage (notably, L'Acad</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Begoner, did you look at some of my earlier posts? I think I may have some insights that were ignored, but I would be interested to hear your take on them.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree with the idea that the "no error" option needs to be critically examined.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the problem with having a "no error" option is that the Collegeboard applies an inconsistent definition of "error." Oftentimes, for the CR questions that ask you to rewrite a sentence, several possible answer choices are grammatically correct. Ultimately, you have to pick the one response that wasn't written by Yoda since it is the "most" correct. This is a completely subjective measure of how valid a sentence is. However, you're supposed to differentiate between poor phrasing and outright grammatical errors in the writing section. Indeed, the sentences are often convoluted in order to make the question more difficult. Even though the answer might be "no error" for such a question, if it appeared as a CR question, there would indubitably be a more concise, preferable alternative among the answer choices. This type of double standard should be eliminated somehow; however, this should not be accomplished by eliminating the subjective criteria that exist in the CR section. Also, the "no error" option could be retained provided that "wordiness" or "awkwardness" aren't considered mistakes. There is a sound basis for such subjective questions; they aim to equalize the playing field somewhat by allowing anyone with an appreciation of the English language to excel rather those that memorized a small set of grammatical rules that inevitably pop up on the SAT. I think that next the answer choices could contain potential revisions so that instead of simply underlining A, B, C, and D, solutions could be proposed. So a question could look like this:</p>
<p>Bob traveled (A) along a long, winding (B) road to reach his destination, a house (C) built in Gothic style (D).</p>
<p>A) traveling
B) winded
C) and it was a house
D) stylistically
E) no error</p>
<p>Also, I'm not a fan of tricks involving "their" being used when the antecedent is a singular noun as most people would recognize this as an error if presented with a possible correction. However, as it currently stands, those who are coached have a substantially better chance of recognizing such an error quickly.</p>