The link below is to an article that takes a look at 20 books written by 2020 US Presidential Candidates.
My grammar checker and I are on a break. Due to irreconcilable differences, we are no longer on speaking terms.
It all started when it became dead set on putting commas before every single “which”. Despite all the angry underlining, “this is a habit which seems prevalent” does not need a comma before “which”. Take it from me, I am a linguist.
This is just one of many challenging cases where grammar is slippery and hard to pin down. To make matters worse, it appears that the grammar we use while speaking is slightly different to the grammar we use while writing. Speech and writing seem similar enough – so much so that for centuries, people (linguists included) were blind to the differences.
There’s issues to consider
Let me give you an example. Take sentences like “there is X” and “there are X”. You may have been taught that “there is” occurs with singular entities because “is” is the present singular form of “to be” – as in “there is milk in the fridge” or “there is a storm coming”.
Conversely, “there are” is used with plural entities: “there are twelve months in a year” or “there are lots of idiots on the road”.
What about “there’s X”? Well, “there’s” is the abbreviated version of “there is”. That makes it the verb form of choice when followed by singular entities.
Nice theory. It works for standard, written language, formal academic writing, and legal documents. But in speech, things are very different.
It turns out that spoken English favours “there is” and “there’s” over “there are”, regardless of what follows the verb: “there is five bucks on the counter” or “there’s five cars all fighting for that Number 10 spot”.
A question of planning
This is not because English is going to hell in a hand basket, nor because young people can’t speak “proper” English anymore.
Linguists Jen Hay and Daniel Schreier scrutinised examples of old recordings of New Zealand English to see what happens in cases where you might expect “there” followed by plural, (or “there are” or “there were” for past events) but where you find “there” followed by singular (“there is”, “there’s”, “there was”).
They found that the contracted form “there’s” is a go-to form which seems prevalent with both singular and plural entities. But there’s more. The greater the distance between “be” and the entity following it, the more likely speakers are to ignore the plural rule.
“There is great vast fields of corn” is likely to be produced because the plural entity “fields” comes so far down the expression, that speakers do not plan for it in advance with a plural form “are”.
Even more surprisingly, the use of the singular may not always necessarily have much to do with what follows “there is/are”. It can simply be about the timing of the event described. With past events, the singular form is even more acceptable. “There was dogs in the yard” seems to raise fewer eyebrows than “there is dogs in the yard”.
Nothing new here
The disregard for the plural form is not a new thing (darn, we can’t even blame it on texting). According to an article published last year by Norwegian linguist Dania Bonneess, the change towards the singular form “there is” has been with us in New Zealand English ever since the 19th century. Its history can be traced at least as far back as the second generation of the Ulster family of Irish emigrants.
Editors, language commissions and prescriptivists aside, everyday New Zealand speech has a life of its own, governed not so much by style guides and grammar rules, but by living and breathing individuals.
It should be no surprise that spoken language is different to written language. The most spoken-like form of speech (conversation) is very unlike the most written-like version of language (academic or other formal or technical writing) for good reason.
Speech and writing
In conversation, there is no time for planning. Expressions come out more or less off the cuff (depending on the individual), with no ability to edit, and with immediate need for processing. We hear a chunk of language and at the same time as parsing it, we are already putting together a response to it – in real time.
This speed has consequences for the kind of language we use and hear. When speaking, we rely on recycled expressions, formulae we use over and over again, and less complex structures.
For example, we are happy enough writing and reading a sentence like:
That the human brain can use language is amazing.
But in speech, we prefer:
It is amazing that the human brain can use language.
Both are grammatical, yet one is simpler and quicker for the brain to decode.
And sometimes, in speech we use grammatical crutches to help the brain get the message quicker. A phrase like “the boxes I put the files into” is readily encountered in writing, but in speech we often say and hear “the boxes I put the files into them”.
We call these seemingly unnecessary pronouns (“them” in the previous example) “shadow pronouns”. Even linguistics professors use these latter expressions no matter how much they might deny it.
Speech: a faster ride
There is another interesting difference between speech and writing: speech is not held up on the same rigid prescriptive pedestal as writing, nor is it as heavily regulated in the same way that writing is scrutinised by editors, critics, examiners and teachers.
This allows room in speech for more creativity and more language play, and with it, faster change. Speech is known to evolve faster than writing, even though writing will eventually catch up (at least for some changes).
I would guess that by now, most editors are happy enough to let the old “whom” form rest and “who” take over (“who did you give that book to?”).
The link below is to another article that reports on the novel written by Robert Galbraith, who is in fact J.K. Rowling. The crime novel is called ‘The Cuckoo’s Calling.’
The link below is to an interesting article about Hans Christian Andersen and the discovery of what is believed to have been his first fairytale written while a schoolboy.
I really didn’t think I’d get too much read this week, but as you will see from the list below I have been able to read a fair bit.
I was able to get The Hunger Games trilogy completed, which is good given the DVD of the first movie will be out in a week or so here in Australia. I haven’t seen the movie yet, so getting the books read prior to the movie was something I wanted to do.
This coming week I’d like to get a few more books read – I’ll see how I go.
Social Networks, Web Applications & Other Tools
Not a lot done on social networks or web applications this week. I have added a few books to Goodreads, that is about all really.
Currently, I am reading the following books:
– Discipline of Grace, by Jerry Bridges
I’m hoping to actually make some good progress on this book today and tomorrow. I read it once or twice before, but not in a while. Looking forward to getting into it. Jerry Bridges is usually very good to read.
– Collapse, by Richard Stephenson
I’m just over halfway through this one, but it is a fairly long novel so it will take another day or two to complete at least.
This week I have been able to read the following books:
– Phantoms on the Bookshelves, by Jacques Bonnet
I completed this book very early in the week and have written a review which can be found via the link below. Probably only really appeal to those of us who are really into books and have a library of our own. I quite enjoyed the read.
– Killing Calvinism: How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Theology from the Inside, by Greg Dutcher
This was a great book and one I should read on a regular basis – perhaps once a year. A very challenging book, with many lessons for the church today (thinking of reformed churches).
– Catching Fire: The Hunger Games Books 2, by Suzanne Collins
I haven’t as of yet wrote a review on this one – will do soon hopefully.
– Mockingjay: The Hunger Games Book 3, by Suzanne Collins
I haven’t as of yet wrote a review on this one – will do so soon hopefully.
Purchased & Added to Library:
I again grabbed a heap of free ebooks from Amazon. These are all of the books I’ve posted on my Blog ‘The Book Stand,’ so all posted there I also downloaded for myself. I’ll certainly have more books than I can ever read that’s for sure, but certainly never wanting for choice. No harm in grabbing them while there free and in digital format – if I don’t read them all, what does it matter? At least I’ll have them if I want to read them.
Among the books I actually purchased this week:
– The Hunger Games – Catching Fire, by Suzanne Collins
– The Hunger Games – Mockingjay, by Suzanne Collins
– In Christ Alone – Living the Gospel Centered Life, by Sinclair Ferguson
– Set Apart – Calling a Worldly Church to a Godly Life, by Kent R. Hughes
The link below is to an article that looks at the future of books and the written word. In short its about books.
The link below is to an article about the banning and pulling from various public libraries across a number of states in the USA of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey,’ written by E. L. James.
The following link is to an article about the new release book, ‘Poetry of the Taliban,’ which features poetry written by Taliban fighters. As you can imagine, the book has sparked outrage from many who see the book as supporting terrorists and extremists. What do you think?
Francis Tan has recently posted on ‘The Next Web’ site a post called ‘Why Books Will Probably Never Die.’ It is about the future of the written word and ebooks. Worth a read.
To Read the article visit: