`Prescriptivists' fight back
To make sweeping, grave, unsubstantiated charges against unnamed persons, hurl abuse at them and base on their supposed misdemeanors arguments for questionable alternatives to things that one dislikes, is to scrape the very under-surface of the gutter that houses gutter journalists.
Good communicators exploit grammar fully, but unpedantically and unpompously. John Rosenthal, extolling the American National Corpus (New high-tech weapon shifts balance of power in war of words, Aug. 18, page 9), is unconcerned with standards of communication, however. He describes those he calls "prescriptivists" as "overly wedded to arcane rules of grammar," abuses them as "anal [sic] retentive," and cites -- without attribution (not to mention context) -- supposed examples of their over-weddedness. Then, just as you think he's about to assert the courage of his convictions, he disappoints: "The usual author of this column is sometimes accused of being prescriptive," he writes, stopping right there, cravenly failing to commit himself.
In his sub-gutteral hole, Rosenthal has erected a fence, and sits firmly upon it, hurling poisonous projectiles at the easiest of targets: one with no parameters. Just who are his prescriptivists? Hemingway, perhaps? Shakespeare?
I doubt whether many drugstore or launderette conversationalists would be presumptuous enough to consider themselves exemplars of linguistic usage. Rosenthal may or may not be correct in his implicit, patronizing argument that few of them care about grammar. The corpus will shed (at least "empirical") light on this: maybe they do; maybe they don't.
But then, most people can't play basketball like Michael Jordan or sing and dance like Madonna. The point -- if language is to serve its actual purpose of enabling people to communicate -- is fundamentally one of quality: Grammar promotes levels of articulacy that the absurd exercises in usage as popularity contest that Rosenthal envisages never will.
Will the corpus log the frequency with which misunderstandings occur in the average exchange between the grammatically indifferent? Will it address aspects of style, so inextricably related to gram-mar? Or are such matters purely for snobs? Like good basketball?
But, the corpus, like Rosenthal, is not about good communication. He quotes its project manager, Randi Reppen, describing how it might be used, with a staggeringly self-defeating hypothetical scenario: "... you want to know whether most people still use `I couldn't care less' or ... the easier (but nonsensical) [sic] `I could care less'..." Are tax dollars funding any of this "nonsense."?
That corporations, accomplished in the money-spinning pursuit of the lowest-common denominator, have signed up to promote the "use of language that is more common," will surprise nobody.
As for the universities, the whole "nonsensical" exercise reeks of political correctness and the mind boggles at the extent to which that most prescriptive of current ideologies now holds sway over even the most august institutions of higher learning. What fascinating, groundbreaking insight into usage can the University of Michigan possibly claim to be making with its utterly useless, breathtakingly dull, unimaginably unimportant revelation that "`um' and `uh' are the 14th and 15th most common utterances around Ann Arbor?" "Arcane," is not the word.
The real prescriptivists are those prescribing the end of grammar. People who care about basic articulacy, will treat Rosenthal and the sponsors of the corpus with the contempt they deserve. Of the rest, some, sadly, will remain supremely indifferent. The bigoted and the politically correct will lap up his prescription, however, in precisely the manner in which he dispenses it: anally.
Mark Rawson
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with