Garlic
hangers
In his text
„The ongoing struggles of Garlic-Hangers“ Bryan Garner discusses the importance
of precise language usage. He therefore refers to John McWhorter, who compared
restrictive behavior of prescriptivists with the hanging of garlic against
Vampires. I think Garner tries to ridicule a narrow minds discussion concerning
prescriptivism and descriptivism, that is determined by a person´s preconceived
opinion rather than by arguments. Or to put it differently, it is an argument
for the arguments sake, that basically leads nowhere. Later in his text Garner
claims, that most prescriptivists fought a losing battle and had to witness the
overruling of practices they defended their entire lives. This in mind he continues
to pave the way towards a less strict emphasis on prescriptivist or
descriptivist worldviews, by shifting the focus on language itself. By using
the ambiguity of several words, he shows how subjective a text (that seemingly
has a simple message) can be interpreted or misunderstood. This I find
interesting. Although I would not use some of the words in the way he did, it
became clear to me, that meaning is created within the reader´s mind not in
text itself. The question that now concerns me is, whether the “loss” of
individual words decreases a languages value or whether these “lost” word show
up in a different form, for examples in longer sentences, or sentence-structures
that transport the words former meaning (the thing the word was supposed to
express), but I assume I will never know.
In his text („) [St-^“] The ongoing struggles of Garlic-Hangers (“) [St;P-^,”] Bryan Garner discusses the importance of precise language usage. (He therefore refers to) [W,M - ^ In that vein, he cites] John McWhorter, who [T/asp - ^has] compared [det - ^the] restrictive behavior of prescriptivists with the hanging of garlic (against) [Prep,W,En - ^ to ward off] Vampires. I think Garner tries to ridicule (a narrow minds) [det;WF,Gr - ^ the narrow-minded] discussion concerning prescriptivism and descriptivism(,) [P,Gr - restrictive relative clause] that is determined by (a person´s) [WF,Gr,foc,M - ^ people’s] preconceived opinion rather than by arguments. Or to put it differently, it is an argument for (the arguments) [no det;WF - ^ argument’s] sake, (that) [W,Gr,M - ^ which] basically leads nowhere. Later in his text [P - ^,] Garner claims (,) [P] that most prescriptivists [T/Asp- ^ had] fought a losing battle and had to witness the overruling of practices they [T/Asp- ^ had] defended their entire lives. (This) [foc,E,M- ^ With this] in mind (,) [P] he continues to pave the way towards a less strict emphasis on prescriptivist or descriptivist worldviews, by shifting the focus (on) [prep- ^ onto] language itself. By using the ambiguity of several words, he shows how (subjective) [WF- ^ subjectively] a text (that seemingly has a simple message) can be (interpreted) [WF- ^ misinterpreted] or misunderstood. This I find interesting. Although I would not use some of the words in the way (he did) [foc;T/Asp - ^ Garner does], it became clear to me(,) [P] that meaning is created within the reader´s mind[P - ^,] not in text itself. The question that now concerns me is(,) [P] whether the “loss” of individual words decreases a languages value or whether these “lost” word show up in a different form, for examples in longer sentences, or sentence-structures that transport the (words) [WF- ^words’] former meaning (the thing the word was supposed to express), but I assume I will never know.
ReplyDeleteIn his text “The ongoing struggles of Garlic-Hangers“, Bryan Garner discusses the importance of precise language usage. In that vein, he cites John McWhorter, who has compared the restrictive behavior of prescriptivists with the hanging of garlic to ward off Vampires. I think Garner tries to ridicule the narrow-minded discussion concerning prescriptivism and descriptivism that is determined by people’s preconceived opinion rather than by arguments. Or to put it differently, it is an argument for argument’s sake, which basically leads nowhere. Later in his text, Garner claims that most prescriptivists had fought a losing battle and had to witness the overruling of practices they had defended their entire lives. With this in mind he continues to pave the way towards a less strict emphasis on prescriptivist or descriptivist worldviews, by shifting the focus onto language itself. By using the ambiguity of several words, he shows how subjectively a text can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. This I find interesting. Although I would not use some of the words in the way Garner does, it became clear to me that meaning is created within the reader´s mind, not in text itself. The question that now concerns me is whether the “loss” of individual words decreases a languages value or whether these “lost” word show up in a different form, for examples in longer sentences, or sentence-structures that transport the words’ former meaning (the thing the word was supposed to express), but I assume I will never know.
ReplyDelete