DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of Prescriptive Usage Problems in Formal and Informal Written English

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of Prescriptive Usage Problems in Formal and Informal Written English Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2019 A comparison of prescriptive usage problems in formal and informal written English Tyler Jordan Smith Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Communication Commons, Linguistics Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Recommended Citation Smith, Tyler Jordan, "A comparison of prescriptive usage problems in formal and informal written English" (2019). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 17566. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/17566 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A comparison of prescriptive usage problems in formal and informal written English by Tyler Jordan Smith A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Co-majors: Rhetoric and Professional Communication; Applied Linguistics and Technology Program of Study Committee: Bethany Gray, Co-major Professor Jo Mackiewicz, Co-major Professor Tracy Lucht David R. Russell Sowmya Vajjala The student author, whose presentation of the scholarship herein was approved by the program of study committee, is solely responsible for the content of this dissertation. The Graduate College will ensure this dissertation is globally accessible and will not permit alterations after a degree is conferred. Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2019 Copyright © Tyler Jordan Smith, 2019. All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION To Melissa, Day, Neve, and Kit. For all your support, understanding, and love. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... x ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Register, Style, and Formality: A Theoretical Framework ............................................ 7 1.1.1 Register ................................................................................................................ 8 1.1.2 Style ................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.3 Formality ............................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Contribution of the Study .......................................................................................... 18 1.3 Overview of the Study ............................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................. 21 2.1 Prescriptivism as an Area of Linguistic Interest ......................................................... 21 2.2 Prescriptivism as a Social Phenomenon ..................................................................... 24 2.3 Origins of Prescriptivism ........................................................................................... 27 2.4 Prescriptivism Today ................................................................................................. 28 2.5 Usage Problems and Usage Guides ............................................................................ 30 2.6 The Interaction between Prescriptivism and Usage .................................................... 33 CHAPTER 3. REGISTER ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 37 3.1 Justifying the Choice of Personal Blogs and News ..................................................... 37 3.2 Comparing the Situational Formality of Personal Blogs and News ............................. 39 3.3 Changes in the Production of News Writing .............................................................. 41 3.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................. 47 4.1 Determining the Level of Prescriptivism in Usage Guides (RQ1)............................... 47 4.1.1 Selecting the Usage Problems to Include in the Study ......................................... 48 iv 4.1.2 Selecting the Usage Guides to Include in the Study ............................................. 50 4.1.3 Compiling the Relevant Entries from the Usage Guides into a Rating Sheet ........ 51 4.1.4 Developing a Scale to Calculate a Prescriptivism Index ...................................... 56 4.1.5 Using the Rating Scale to Calculate a Prescriptivism Index for Each Usage Problem in Each Usage Guide. .................................................................................... 58 4.2 Conducting the Corpus Analysis (RQ2) ..................................................................... 61 4.2.1 COCA–N ............................................................................................................ 61 4.2.2 Corpus of Personal Blog Posts (CPBP) ............................................................... 61 4.2.2.1 Collecting URLs .......................................................................................... 62 4.2.2.2 Determining author location and status as personal blog ............................... 66 4.2.2.3 Scraping, cleaning, and tagging the texts ...................................................... 73 4.2.2.4 Determining the purpose and topic of texts ................................................... 75 4.2.3 Extracting Data from Both Corpora .................................................................... 79 4.2.3.1 Determining whether to use specific or general search terms ........................ 80 4.2.3.2 Determining the number of instances to sample............................................ 81 4.2.3.3 Sampling the data and creating the dataset ................................................... 82 4.2.3.4 Nature of the data ......................................................................................... 82 4.3 Administering the Survey to Bloggers and Journalists (RQ3) ..................................... 85 CHAPTER 5. RESULTS .................................................................................................... 89 5.1 LAY/LIE ...................................................................................................................... 89 5.1.1 Review of Advice from Usage Guides ................................................................ 90 5.1.2 Research Questions and Method of Extracting Data from the Corpora ................ 92 5.1.3 Results of Corpus Analysis ................................................................................. 95 5.1.4 Summary of Survey Results ................................................................................ 98 5.2 WHO/WHOM .............................................................................................................. 100 5.2.1 Level of Prescriptivism in Usage Guides ........................................................... 100 5.2.2 Research Questions and Method of Extracting Data from the Corpora .............. 102 5.2.3 Results of Corpus Analysis ............................................................................... 104 5.2.4 Summary of Survey Results .............................................................................. 107 5.3 DIFFERENT TO/THAN/FROM ........................................................................................ 110 5.3.1 Level of Prescriptivism in Usage Guides ........................................................... 110 5.3.2 Research Questions and Method of Extracting Data from the Corpora .............. 112 5.3.3 Results of Corpus Analysis ............................................................................... 113 5.3.4 Summary of Survey Results .............................................................................. 113 v 5.4 SPLIT INFINITIVE ....................................................................................................... 116 5.4.1 Review of Advice from Usage Guides .............................................................. 116 5.4.2 Research Questions and Method of Extracting Data from the Corpora .............. 118 5.4.3 Results of Corpus Analysis ............................................................................... 119 5.4.4 Summary of Survey Results .............................................................................. 120 5.5 I FOR ME ................................................................................................................... 122 5.5.1 Level of Prescriptivism in Usage Guides ........................................................... 123 5.5.2 Research Questions and Method of Extracting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Creating Words: Is Lexicography for You? Lexicographers Decide Which Words Should Be Included in Dictionaries. They May Decide T
    Creating Words: Is Lexicography for You? Lexicographers decide which words should be included in dictionaries. They may decide that a word is currently just a fad, and so they’ll wait to see whether it will become a permanent addition to the language. In the past several decades, words such as hippie and yuppie have survived being fads and are now found in regular, not just slang, dictionaries. Other words, such as medicare, were created to fill needs. And yet other words have come from trademark names, for example, escalator. Here are some writing options: 1. While you probably had to memorize vocabulary words throughout your school years, you undoubtedly also learned many other words and ways of speaking and writing without even noticing it. What factors are bringing about changes in the language you now speak and write? Classes? Songs? Friends? Have you ever influenced the language that someone else speaks? 2. How often do you use a dictionary or thesaurus? What helps you learn a new word and remember its meaning? 3. Practice being a lexicographer: Define a word that you know isn’t in the dictionary, or create a word or set of words that you think is needed. When is it appropriate to use this term? Please give some sample dialogue or describe a specific situation in which you would use the term. For inspiration, you can read the short article in the Writing Center by James Chiles about the term he has created "messismo"–a word for "true bachelor housekeeping." 4. Or take a general word such as "good" or "friend" and identify what it means in different contexts or the different categories contained within the word.
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Grammar
    Traditional Grammar Traditional grammar refers to the type of grammar study Continuing with this tradition, grammarians in done prior to the beginnings of modern linguistics. the eighteenth century studied English, along with many Grammar, in this traditional sense, is the study of the other European languages, by using the prescriptive structure and formation of words and sentences, usually approach in traditional grammar; during this time alone, without much reference to sound and meaning. In the over 270 grammars of English were published. During more modern linguistic sense, grammar is the study of the most of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, grammar entire interrelated system of structures— sounds, words, was viewed as the art or science of correct language in meanings, sentences—within a language. both speech and writing. By pointing out common Traditional grammar can be traced back over mistakes in usage, these early grammarians created 2,000 years and includes grammars from the classical grammars and dictionaries to help settle usage arguments period of Greece, India, and Rome; the Middle Ages; the and to encourage the improvement of English. Renaissance; the eighteenth and nineteenth century; and One of the most influential grammars of the more modern times. The grammars created in this eighteenth century was Lindley Murray’s English tradition reflect the prescriptive view that one dialect or grammar (1794), which was updated in new editions for variety of a language is to be valued more highly than decades. Murray’s rules were taught for many years others and should be the norm for all speakers of the throughout school systems in England and the United language.
    [Show full text]
  • Error Linguistics and the Teaching and Learning of Written English in Nigerian Universities As a Second Language Environment
    International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) ISSN (Online): 2319 – 7722, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 7714 www.ijhssi.org ||Volume 9 Issue 6 Ser. I || June 2020 || PP 61-68 Error Linguistics and the Teaching and Learning of Written English in Nigerian Universities as a Second Language Environment MARTIN C. OGAYI Department of English and Literary Studies Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki. Abstract: Alarming decline of the written English language proficiency of graduates of Nigerian universities has been observed for a long period of time. This has engendered a startling and besetting situation in which most graduates of Nigerian universities cannot meet the English language demands of their employers since they cannot write simple letters, memoranda and reports in their places of work. Pedagogy has sought different methods or strategies to remedy the trend. Applied linguistics models have been developed towards the improvement of second or foreign language learning through the use of diagnostic tools such as error analysis. This paper focuses on the usefulness and strategies of error analysis as diagnostic tool and strategy for second language teaching exposes the current state of affairs in English as a Second Language learning in Nigerian sociolinguistic environment highlights the language-learning theories associated with error analysis, and, highlights the factors that hinder effective error analysis of written ESL production in Nigerian universities. The paper also discusses the role of positive corrective feedback as a beneficial error treatment that facilitates second language learning. Practical measures for achieving more efficient and more productive English as a Second Language teaching and learning in Nigerian universities have also been proffered in the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Descriptive Versus Prescriptive Grammar Eli Hinkel Seattle Pacific University [email protected] Word Count 2,453 Abstract A
    Page 1 of 5 TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching Descriptive versus Prescriptive Grammar Eli Hinkel Seattle Pacific University [email protected] Word Count 2,453 Abstract A descriptive grammar is a study of a language, its structure, and its rules as they are used in daily life by its speakers from all walks of life, including standard and nonstandard varieties. A prescriptive grammar, on the other hand, specifies how a language and its grammar rules should be used. A prescriptivist view of language implies a distinction between "good grammar" and "bad grammar," and its primary focus is on standard forms of grammar and syntactic constructions. Main Text Section 1: Framing the Issue A definition of a descriptive grammar: A descriptive grammar is a study of a language, its structure, and its rules as they are used in daily life by its speakers from all walks of life, including standard and nonstandard varieties. That is, descriptive grammar describes the language, its structure, and the syntactic rules that govern sentence and phrase constructions (Greenbaum & Quirk, 1990). A descriptive study of grammar is non-judgmental, and it does not have the goal of determining what represents good or bad language, correct or incorrect structures, or grammatical or ungrammatical forms (Leech, Deuchar, & Hoogenraad, 2006). A descriptive grammar is typically studied by linguists, anthropologists, ethnographers, psychologists, or other researchers who seek to identify how the grammar of a language is actually used in various contexts and for various purposes. (Books that describe and present the grammar of any language are called reference grammars, or sometimes "a grammar" by non-specialists.) In this light, sentences such as Him and me, we are neighbors or I don't know nothing simply reflect how the language is used by its speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Generative Lexicon
    The Generative Lexicon James Pustejovsky" Computer Science Department Brandeis University In this paper, I will discuss four major topics relating to current research in lexical seman- tics: methodology, descriptive coverage, adequacy of the representation, and the computational usefulness of representations. In addressing these issues, I will discuss what I think are some of the central problems facing the lexical semantics community, and suggest ways of best ap- proaching these issues. Then, I will provide a method for the decomposition of lexical categories and outline a theory of lexical semantics embodying a notion of cocompositionality and type coercion, as well as several levels of semantic description, where the semantic load is spread more evenly throughout the lexicon. I argue that lexical decomposition is possible if it is per- formed generatively. Rather than assuming a fixed set of primitives, I will assume a fixed number of generative devices that can be seen as constructing semantic expressions. I develop a theory of Qualia Structure, a representation language for lexical items, which renders much lexical ambiguity in the lexicon unnecessary, while still explaining the systematic polysemy that words carry. Finally, I discuss how individual lexical structures can be integrated into the larger lexical knowledge base through a theory of lexical inheritance. This provides us with the necessary principles of global organization for the lexicon, enabling us to fully integrate our natural language lexicon into a conceptual whole. 1. Introduction I believe we have reached an interesting turning point in research, where linguistic studies can be informed by computational tools for lexicology as well as an appre- ciation of the computational complexity of large lexical databases.
    [Show full text]
  • National Strategy for Linguistic Security National Strategy for Linguistic Security 2
    National Strategy for Linguistic Security National Strategy for Linguistic Security 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Context ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Preamble ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Towards a common understanding ............................................................................................................... 5 Premise ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Main directions .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Fields of intervention ...........................................................................................................................................................11 A global vision.......................................................................................................................................................................11 Challenges, strategies and courses of action ..........................................................................................12 What we want to do differently in education ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Split Infinitives in English: a Corpus-Based Investigation
    Linguistic Research 31(1), 53-68 Split infinitives in English: A corpus-based investigation Youngjun Jang* · Sunjoo Choi** (Chung-Ang University) Jang, Youngjun and Sunjoo Choi. 2014. Split infinitives in English: A corpus-based investigation. Linguistic Research 31(1), 53-68. The focus of this paper is to investigate the corpora of split infinitives. In English, some adverbs occur between the infinitive marker to and the verb, which has been called split infinitives. To split or not to split infinitive has been an issue in English grammar. Modern English, however, witnesses a burst-out of the usage of split infinitives, as has been investigated by numerous works in the literature. In this paper, we have investigated the phenomenon using corpus data such as the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) and Time Magazine Corpus and we reached a conclusion that split infinitives are being used more often than before. We also tried to analyse various types of split infinitives. It appears that only a limited number of adverbs can split the infinitives and only a number of verbs can be split by these adverbs. There is a big difference between the distribution of adverbs in a finite clause and that of an infinitival clause. (Chung-Ang University) Keywords: split infinitives, infinitival marker, adverb, COCA, COHA, corpus, intensifiers, clausal structure 1. Introduction1 To split or to ‘not’ split? That has been one of the controversial issues in the grammar of English (Crystal, 2003; Mikulova,
    [Show full text]
  • Character-Word LSTM Language Models
    Character-Word LSTM Language Models Lyan Verwimp Joris Pelemans Hugo Van hamme Patrick Wambacq ESAT – PSI, KU Leuven Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium [email protected] Abstract A first drawback is the fact that the parameters for infrequent words are typically less accurate because We present a Character-Word Long Short- the network requires a lot of training examples to Term Memory Language Model which optimize the parameters. The second and most both reduces the perplexity with respect important drawback addressed is the fact that the to a baseline word-level language model model does not make use of the internal structure and reduces the number of parameters of the words, given that they are encoded as one-hot of the model. Character information can vectors. For example, ‘felicity’ (great happiness) is reveal structural (dis)similarities between a relatively infrequent word (its frequency is much words and can even be used when a word lower compared to the frequency of ‘happiness’ is out-of-vocabulary, thus improving the according to Google Ngram Viewer (Michel et al., modeling of infrequent and unknown words. 2011)) and will probably be an out-of-vocabulary By concatenating word and character (OOV) word in many applications, but since there embeddings, we achieve up to 2.77% are many nouns also ending on ‘ity’ (ability, com- relative improvement on English compared plexity, creativity . ), knowledge of the surface to a baseline model with a similar amount of form of the word will help in determining that ‘felic- parameters and 4.57% on Dutch. Moreover, ity’ is a noun.
    [Show full text]
  • Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation – Formate Und Ihre Nutzung
    LU L INGUISTISCHE U NTERSUCHUNGEN Thomas Gloning/Gerd Fritz (Hg.) Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikati on – Formate und ihre Nutzung Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek 2011 Linguistische Untersuchungen 3 Herausgegeben von Iris Bons, Gerd Fritz und Thomas Gloning ______________________________________________________ Schlagwörter Wissenschaftskommunikation; digitale Medienformate; Web 2.0; Interaktivität; Open Peer Review; Wissenschaftsblogs; wissenschaftliche Mailinglists; Texttypen; Kontroversen _________________________________________________________________ Gloning, Thomas/Fritz, Gerd (Hg.): Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation – Formate und ihre Nutzung. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek 2011 – URL: http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2011/8227/ (Linguistische Untersuchungen, Band 3. Hg. von Iris Bons, Gerd Fritz und Thomas Gloning) Inhalt Interne Wissenschaftskommunikation im Zeichen der Digitalisierung. Formate, Nutzungsweisen, Dynamik Thomas Gloning ............................................................................... 3 Das Web 2.0 in der wissenschaftlichen Praxis Michael Nentwich .......................................................................... 35 Zur Entwicklung von Formaten und Kommunikationsformen in der digitalen Wissenschaftskommunikation – eine evolutionäre Betrachtungsweise Anita Bader/Gerd Fritz .................................................................. 55 Vom Überleben einer bedrohten Spezies. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der Nutzung wissenschaftlicher Mailinglists Anita Bader/Jurgita
    [Show full text]
  • A Glossary of Usage Common Usage Problems
    NL_EOL_SE07_P1_C12_286-305.qxd 4/18/07 2:57 PM Page 286 CHAPTER A Glossary of Usage Common Usage Problems Diagnostic Preview Correcting Errors in Usage Each of the following sentences contains an error in the use of for- mal, standard English. Revise each sentence to correct the error. EXAMPLE 1. They did they’re best to help. 1. They did their best to help. 1. We are already for our trip to Washington, D.C. 2. They divided the crackers equally between the four toddlers. 3. Please take those packages here to me. 4. Elena had a cold, but she is feeling good now. 5. Mr. Chang he is my tai chi instructor. 6. Will you learn me how to play chess? 7. May I borrow that there collection of Cheyenne folk tales? 8. Tara might of come with us, but she had to baby-sit. 9. We use to live in Karachi, Pakistan. 10. She is the woman which owns the Great Dane. 11. I dropped the pictures, but I think they’re alright. 12. I read where Mayor Alvarez will visit our school. 13. Their the best players on the team this season. 14. The pipes busted last winter during a hard freeze. 15. We cannot go sailing without we wear life jackets. 16. Her new apartment is bigger then her last one. 286 Chapter 12 A Glossary of Usage NL_EOL_SE07_P1_C12_286-305.qxd 4/18/07 2:57 PM Page 287 17. The group went everywheres together. 18. Lydia acted like she was bored. 19. Antonyms are when words are opposite in meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Research Online Oro.Open.Ac.Uk
    Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs “You can just give those documents to myself’: Untriggered reflexive pronouns in 21st century spoken British English Book Section How to cite: Paterson, Laura (2018). “You can just give those documents to myself’: Untriggered reflexive pronouns in 21st century spoken British English. In: Brezina, Vaclav; Love, Robbie and Aijmer, Karin eds. Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech. Sociolinguistic Studies of the Spoken (BNC2014). Abingdon: Routledge. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2018 Routledge Version: Accepted Manuscript Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: https://www.routledge.com/Corpus-Approaches-to-Contemporary-British-Speech-Sociolinguistic-Studies/Brezina-Love-Aijmer/p/book/9781138287273 Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk You can just give those documents to myself’: Untriggered reflexive pronouns in 21st century spoken British English Laura L. Paterson, The Open University, UK 1. Introduction Reflexive pronouns, such as myself, herself, yourselves, share a real-world referent with other components of the clause (or local domain) in which they occur. As such, they require a coreferent noun phrase (NP) to fulfil their syntactic criteria. In the sentence ‘The cat washes herself’, the NP the cat and the reflexive pronoun herself correspond to the same entity and share a syntactic bond. However, despite formal syntactic constraints, reflexive pronouns are used without coreferent NPs in (some varieties of) English (Parker, Riley and Meyer 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • A Feasibility Study of Hypercorrection in The
    I IS PRESTIGIOUS: A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF HYPERCORRECTION IN THE ACCUSATIVE CASE IN AMERICAN ENGLISH A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS BY BENJAMIN D. BISHOP GUILHERME DUARTE GARCIA - ADVISOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA MAY 2020 1 I IS PRESTIGIOUS Page 2 Contents 1 Abstract 4 2 Introduction 4 2.1 Linguistic Viruses . 4 2.2 Hypercorrection . 5 2.3 Identity in L1 English Hypercorrection . 7 2.4 Instructional Implications . 9 2.5 Objective . 10 3 Methods 12 4 Experiment 1 13 4.1 Methodology, Experiment 1 . 13 4.2 Results, Experiment 1 . 15 4.3 Discussion, Experiment 1 . 17 4.3.1 Hypercorrection and grouping . 17 4.3.2 Hypercorrection and time in residence . 18 4.3.3 Hypercorrection and age . 19 4.3.4 Hypercorrection and degree . 19 4.4 Overall Discussion . 19 5 Experiment 2 20 5.1 Methodology Experiment 2 . 20 5.2 Results, Experiment 2 . 21 5.3 Discussion, Experiment 2 . 23 5.3.1 Positional Import . 23 5.3.2 Education . 24 5.3.3 Age . 24 I IS PRESTIGIOUS Page 3 6 General Discussion 25 6.1 Degree and hypercorrection in culture . 25 6.2 Age and hypercorrection in culture . 26 6.3 The linguistic virus' structure . 27 6.3.1 The Linguistic Virus' Internal Structure . 27 6.3.2 The Linguistic Virus' External Placement . 28 6.3.3 The Linguistic Virus' Virulence . 28 6.4 Implications for instruction . 28 7 Conclusions 29 8 Implications for Future Research 30 I IS PRESTIGIOUS Page 4 1 Abstract Hypercorrection is an overgeneralization of a prestige semantic struc- ture (Piattelli-Palmarini and Uriagereka, 2004).
    [Show full text]