“Correctness” is the measure of conformity to a standard.
If you apply “correctness” in the context of non-standard English, you are then dividing non-standard English into “standard non-standard English” and “non-standard non-standard English”, which is plainly absurd.
(I’m not sure why it worries you, by the way; unless you still retain the notion that “correct” English means “intrinsically better” English.)
MrP
“Correctness” is the measure of conformity to a standard.
Are you saying that linguistic standards do not exist outside the thing that you call standard English?
Not at all. Most of those who speak the English which you call non-standard don’t normally use the term in reference to their own English. I’ve never heard anyone say “I speak non-standard English”, but I’ve heard a lot of folks say “I speak standard English”. What you are doing is attempting to possess and limit the word “correct”. Their are standards outside your idea of “standard” and correctness exists outside your idea of “correctness”. So, only in your mind could something called “standard non-standard English” exist. Only from your sociopolitical view of language use could “non-standard non-standard English” exist.
In the world of those who speak the English which you call non-standard, what exists is this is our standard while Mr P’s standard and other people’s standards are exactly that, “other”.
So, you would, if honest, need to adjust your statement to:
To do otherwise is to try to possess and limit a word belonging to all of us.
And this one:
So, tell us do, if a speaker of Newfoundland English were to correct someone who said “Where to ya?” instead of “Where ya to?”, would he be telling them what is correct by the standards of Newfoundland English?
Steady, old thing. It’s only a webpage.
Now here are the two statements again:
Two questions:
How can a statement that the word “correct” has no “relevance” beyond the context of standard English be construed as a “prescriptivist” approach to non-standard forms?
If X says that the idea of “non-standard non-standard English” is “plainly absurd”, by what curious logic can Y claim that “only from X’s sociopolitical view of language use could non-standard non-standard English exist”?
Two clues:
What do millions of native speakers do every day, at home or at work, in the standard forms of their languages?
What do millions of native speakers not do every day, at home or at work, in the non-standard forms of their languages?
Extra clue:
MrP
Back to your patronising ways, eh?
Lets’ see the original dialogue:
How do you understand my meaning of “correct” there?
That’s a little selective. Here is the full version:
Rusty, like Forbes, is clearly an astute respondent.
“Correctness” is a property of the standard form of a language. If you read the first chapter of your favourite grammar very carefully, you will understand why:
MrP
MrP: Can you provide an example of how you would use “correct” in the context of a non-standard form?
M:
Silence? Did you read this?
“Correctness” is a property of the standard form of a language.
I think you might find that the word is not to be possessed, however much you may want it to be.
Molly wrote and asked: (The correct way to say “Where are you?” in Newfoundland English , for example, would be “Where ya to?”, as far as I understand.)[color=blue] If I were to say “Where to ya?” in that context, I’d be using the expression incorrectly, right? Someone would be justified if he said to me “No, that’s incorrect. The correct form is…”, wouldn’t he?
Mr P:
We were discussing the dialogue that took place at English Page. There you maintained a discreet silence.
MrP
Do these sound like examples from publications, political communication, or government broadcasting?
Them looking after the kids was a great help.
Them looking after the kids were a great help.
Hey, note:
Molly: Why can’t we talk about things being correct in non-standard forms?
Mr P:
I know nothing at all about Newfoundland English or its status; and your “as far as I understand” doesn’t fill me with confidence that you know any more than I do.
Try again with a non-standard form we both know.
I shall have to learn to live with the disappointment.
MrP
You find it difficult to discuss such a simple example?
OK. Name a few non-standard forms you are familiar with and we’ll see if I can help you.
You have forgotten that at English Page you post in the guise of a non-native speaker.
So why should Rusty and Pete assume that you know those examples aren’t standard English?
MrP
OK. Name a few non-standard forms you are familiar with and we’ll see if I can help you.
Classic London cabbie?
New Cross Gate muggerese?
The idiolect of Graham Taylor?
Yes, please do.
:?
MrP
Try again with a non-standard form we both know.
This could go on forever, Mr P.
How about this?
Imagine, in non-standard form X, this was used:
“Where ya to?” (where the standard form would use “Where are you?”). If a visitor to the area or a very young local child were to say "Where to ya?, when wanting to mean "“Where ya to?”, would an adult speaker of non-standard form X be justified in saying “No, that’s incorrect. The correct form is…”? If not, which word would speaker of non-standard form X need to use?
To preserve:
MrP
No; a hypothesis won’t do. The point of my comment was that in the real world the relationship between standard English and non-standard English is asymmetrical.
This is because standard English is a subset of the possible forms, selected by consensus: when someone says that a phrase is “correct”, it means that a particular form belongs to that subset. The word therefore describes a one-way relationship between a form in use and the subset.
Take these two sentences:
In standard English, #1 is “incorrect”, and #2 is “correct”. However, the inverse relationship between the form and the subset does not apply; it would not make sense to say:
#1 is simply “non-standard”. Or as Forbes put it, “The real point of course is that when speaking a non-standard variety one is not troubled with notions of correctness.”
Cf.
Here, the notion of “correctness” is irrelevant: #3 is ungrammatical, while #4 is grammatical but unidiomatic.
MrP
So, in the days before standard English it was impossible to talk about language as correct or incorrect, right?
Whose consensus?
You’ve yet to provide proof of that. Ask a Cockney whether he/she is concerned that Cockney is used correctly or not.
Am I right in thinking that the use of the word “correct” by standard English speakers can be classed as a lay view of language?
Questions of style, grammar, and idiom have always been discussed. But “correctness” pertains to standard forms of a language.
The consensus of those who agree what standard English is, of course.
(See the passage I quoted above from the CGEL.)
Do you have an example of “Cockney used incorrectly”?
MrP