| Sidor om ämnet: < [1 2 3 4] | Is the subjunctive disappearing in English? Trådens avsändare: Tim Drayton (X)
|
|---|
Giles Watson 
Italien
Local time: 05:33
Italienska till Engelska
In memoriam | French lessons | May 21, 2014 |
Neil Coffey wrote:
As Phil says, there is a problem in that you have covertly shifted from talking about "grammar" as the invited rules of grammarians to "grammar" in terms of the syntax intuited by native speakers.
Let me put it another way.
Modality, the speaker's attitude towards the utterance, can be expressed syntactically - in disjuncts, for example - as well as grammatically (morphologically) in verbs, or deduced from the context.
Tim D. provided a useful example with "I insist that Paris is the capital of France". If this is the complete utterance, excised from any context, the verb must be indicative (zero mood) with "insist" used in the non-modal sense of "repeat". But if we are talking about future administrative reform, the verb has modal force, which can be flagged up with "shall", "will" or "should". Or we could use the English mood-marked/subjunctive/whatever-you-want-to-call-it "be", which in this context is clear, more economical than a modal verb phrase and adds a dash of solemnity to discussion of a serious topic (French politics).
What is special about classical languages is that they belong to the past. Language has a diachronic dimension as well as its current or future manifestations. How we formulate thought is in many respects driven by tensions between past and present.
But are you saying that there is really a spate of translators and professional writers who aren't doing this, i.e. continually weighing up language use in the way you suggest to suit the requirements of their text?
No.
But the process is challenging. Texts are written and interpreted in the light of the different information and assumptions of author and reader/translator. Most of our own misunderstandings are down to the simple fact that we don't share the same perspective on language. It does make for a lively discussion, though 
[Edited at 2014-05-21 08:28 GMT]
| | | | Neil Coffey
Storbritannien
Local time: 04:33
Franska till Engelska
+ ...
| Perspectives on acquisition/language core | May 21, 2014 |
Giles Watson wrote:
Tim D. provided a useful example with "I insist that Paris is the capital of France". If this is the complete utterance, excised from any context, the verb must be indicative (zero mood)
...
want-to-call-it "be", which in this context is clear, more economical than a modal verb phrase and adds a dash of solemnity to discussion of a serious topic (French politics).
That I would essentially agree with (and didn't think was really in doubt)-- though the bit about adding solemnity is really a value judgement.
[quote]Giles Watson wrote:
What is special about classical languages is that they belong to the past. Language has a diachronic dimension as well as its current or future manifestations. How we formulate thought is in many respects driven by tensions between past and present.
[quote]
So this is true in a very wishy-washy way. But I think where our perspectives differ is that I see languages as having an intuitively-acquired "core", including things that are systemic to the language such as the system of verb morphology, which is internalised purely on the basis of input data. Looking at past languages may affect how we "artificially envisage language" as a metalinguistic process. But it cannot affect how we internalise the core of our native language. (At least, I think there's little evidence or prior plausibility for this.)
| | | | Neil Coffey
Storbritannien
Local time: 04:33
Franska till Engelska
+ ...
| On traditions and practices... | May 21, 2014 |
Russell Jones wrote:
Like Oliver, I find it more than a little depressing that many of the more recent changes in “accepted” English seem to have originated from ignorance of linguistic traditions and grammatical logic
There is a different perspective, though, that may explain some of the language use that we observe. Just because something is "traditional" doesn't intrinsically give it merit. The "traditional grammatical logic" of grammarians and some of the canonical prescriptive works and thinking falling out of it are really pretty flawed logic and ignore many of the observations that modern hindsight can bring us about the way language works. Worrying that innovations and teaching in language are the result of an ignorance of traditions is a bit like worrying that modern innovations in chemistry are the result of an ignorance of phlogiston theory.
From my perspective, the types of questions and concerns that I would have are more along the lines of: today in 2014, are people learning to think intelligently about language and to express themselves clearly, and does language education encourage them to do so? Are people learning about the way language works in a way that will allow society to improve things such as language education and language technology?
(P.S. And I would submit that one of the things that is stifling intelligent thinking about language is precisely the common fallacy among educationalists that "education" about languages means teaching students to apply prescriptive rules arbitrarily and that the "logic" underlying those rules has intrinsic value. Education and obedience aren't the same thing...)
Russell Jones wrote:
If we, as linguists, just surrender to these trends rather than demonstrating well-founded and established practices, then who else is to provide a model for others to learn from.
No, I don't think so-- why do you feel that you are under pressure to "surrender" in this way? If you feel that you are using practices that have merit and that others can learn from (be they traditional or otherwise), why do you feel a need or pressure to change this?
[Edited at 2014-05-21 15:29 GMT]
| | | | Giles Watson
Italien
Local time: 05:33
Italienska till Engelska
In memoriam | Practical envisaging | May 21, 2014 |
Neil Coffey wrote:
So this is true in a very wishy-washy way. But I think where our perspectives differ is that I see languages as having an intuitively-acquired "core", including things that are systemic to the language such as the system of verb morphology, which is internalised purely on the basis of input data. Looking at past languages may affect how we "artificially envisage language" as a metalinguistic process. But it cannot affect how we internalise the core of our native language. (At least, I think there's little evidence or prior plausibility for this.)
It really is a question of perspective, then.
What matters to me is artificially envisaging language in ways that will enable me to discuss texts with other people, particularly authors and customers. I have no favourite metaphor for human language acquisition, nor do I feel a need for one.
On the other hand, basic differences in core internalisation across native languages obviously exist. It helps if you bear them in mind when you're teaching and they can offer insights into language-specific stylistic expectations. But knowing all about them isn't much use when you're trying to unravel the intricacies of an op-ed piece and explain to the author why you translated it the way you did.
[Edited at 2014-05-21 17:16 GMT]
| | | | | Sidor om ämnet: < [1 2 3 4] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Is the subjunctive disappearing in English? | LinguaCore |
|---|
AI Translation at Your Fingertips
The underlying LLM technology of LinguaCore offers AI translations of unprecedented quality. Quick and simple. Add a human linguistic review at the end for expert-level quality at a fraction of the cost and time.
More info » |
| | TM-Town |
|---|
Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
