|
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 3617
- 经验
- 3617 点
- 威望
- 299 点
- 金钱
- 2623 ￥
- 魅力
- 2090
|
47 惯例(传统)和描述性语法 [附考古+背景资料]
V1 by zhengxy616（720）
最长的那道一屏半是关于两种语法书的比较的
其中第三段举了两个例子，第一个例子是讲dialect的，第一个句子是standard的用法，用了动词do，第二个句子是unstandard的，用 了动词done。第二个例子是讲了一个standard的句子:She is taller than I.和一个Unstandard的句子:She is taller than me.这里有一道题目，问在这种语法书中应当认为这四句话哪个对哪个错
V2by icedlemon（700）
语言语法 的，descriptive 和predescriptive很长，但是这个不难懂，大家仔细看就好。文中讲到这两种形式是可以兼容并包的，而且语法是没有什么绝对的错误的，口语的形式也没有绝对对错，这个大家注意态度，有考的。
V3by cannahere（760）
问题一：文中例句按照description的语法惯例来看哪个是对的，我选的好像是B？
问题二：以下哪个代表文中观点-好像是两种语法都支持什么什么fact还是啥。。忘记
问题三：最后一段的结构，选assumpiton，consideration，conclusion
问题四：base啥啥。。不记得了，定位最后一段
考古[已确认]
V1
第一段大概介绍了descriptive grammar 和prescriptive grammar的概念和区别，跟上面提到的帖子里的资料挺吻合的
第二段进一步说区别，后半段主要说的是prescriptive grammar中包含一种usage manual（考点：下面哪个选项不是作者在文中提到关于usage manual的信息，实在不记得选了什么了，但是好好读第二段应该没有问题），usage manual 大概就是prescriptive的一种语法规则，虽然它可以知道人们哪些是对的哪些是错的语法，但它的区分有时是不正确的。
第三段紧接着开始举例说明为什么它的区分不正确（考点：举例作用题，我选的就是举了一例子说明文章的一个观点）。例子里包含两组对比，第一个对比是standard structure和Unstandard structure，文中表示usage manual 来区分这两种是正确的（就是说unstandard structure确实不正确）。第二个对比是formal language和informal language，文中指出这种对比是不对的，因为不能说informal language就是incorrect grammar，其实就是说informal language同样正确（考点，问在accurate prescriptive grammar book里面，下面哪种说法正确，我选了a）。
第四段说这些grammar rule虽然存在，但其实语言是人们流传下来的，人们根据自身的习惯来决定到底什么不正确什么正确。这里也有考点，问作者的观点，忘了我选了哪个了，错误选项中好像有说必须得了解语言的历史才能学好语言，还有必须在语法规则的指导下才能正确运用语言。
V2（V30）
长的让你想晕，接近两个屏幕
讲的是两种英语语法书的特点，一个是de…..,另外一个是precis……，忘了具体怎么写了，但是大意很清楚，说D语法书很严谨，注重传统的语法，但是P呢就注重生活。两者很大的不同就在于对方言和非正式用用语的看法，
然后第二段开始举例，说：I did…..,（编号1a）和I done….（编号1b），（还有个例子是正式和非正式语法的区别忘了）就是严谨和不严谨语法的区别。然后两道题集中在这两个例子上，要细看，其中一个题目问作者的态度对于1a,1b,2a,2b，那个是对的，那个是错的，那个是正式的….（以前没有看到的题型）要关注中间，最后一个题目问了对最后一段的归纳。
V3
记得是D重视语法P包括方言和style,原JJ作者提到的1a,1b,2a,2b就是这部分内容，有一道死绕的题……
第三题问说哪三个词归纳了最后一段的内容，选项是类似assumption, elaborate, conclusion这么个结构，很怪异……
V4
第一段description和prescription（貌似）前者讲规则，后者用于实践即对话什么的。
第2段，说两者有conflict，但是还是互补且好用的不过还是有互相矛盾的方面（大概这意思不精准），
然后第3段举了矛盾的例子。有4个句子。A1,B1好像是prescription支持但是description不支持的A2,B2则反之
最后一段又说这两种冲突小于互补互利的总结。
有一个问结构的题。我选了defination,…………，summarize
V5
有本英语书里的decriptive grammar 和 prespective grammar 那篇。篇幅比较长，还有4个例句。新颖点而已。有考主旨题。 最后段记得讲不管哪种语法，最后还是以人们经常和习惯说的为主。人们才是authority。
V6
Prescriptive grammar and Descriptive grammar
第一段：应该是介绍这两种语法,先给出了几点区别(好像有考点,考了其中一个区别)
第二段：继续说明二者的区别,好像讲了满多用法的不同
第三段：没看懂，但是说了formal和informal还有什么7788的... 第三段末尾作者还高亮了4个句子(单独的,没直接接在三段的末尾)用来说明第三段的内容.(考题:高亮处的作用)
第四段：作者说其实二者之间的区别不是太重要,重要的是人.只要人能使用,就不在乎..(考点:本段的结构,注意不是本端在全文的结构,而是句子之间的结构.这道题算是最简单的)
这篇应该是着重强调二者的共性!!
背景资料1
Descriptive grammar (definition #1) refers to the structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. Prescriptive grammar (definition #2) refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used.
Both kinds of grammar are concerned with rules--but in different ways. Specialists in descriptive grammar (called linguists) study the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. On the other hand, prescriptive grammarians (such as most editors and teachers) lay out rules about what they believe to be the “correct” or “incorrect” use of language。
Descriptive grammarians generally advise us not to be overly concerned with matters of correctness: language, they say, isn't good or bad; it simply is. As the history of the glamorous word grammar demonstrates, the English language is a living system of communication, a continually evolving affair. Within a generation or two, words and phrases come into fashion and fall out again. Over centuries, word endings and entire sentence structures can change or disappear.
Prescriptive grammarians prefer giving practical advice about using language: straightforward rules to help us avoid making errors. The rules may be over-simplified at times, but they are meant to keep us out of trouble--the kind of trouble that may distract or even confuse our readers.
背景资料2
For the past half-century, these terms have served as useful labels for two contrasting approaches to the study of grammar and usage and especially to the teaching of these matters. They have also long served as epithets in the recurrent name-calling that quarreling over correctness, appropriateness, and permissiveness in language seems to elicit. The terms represent polar values: (1) A descriptive approach to language describes in full detail precisely how we use that language. The chief values of this approach are accuracy and an unretouched picture of usage, warts and all. (2) A prescriptive approach insists that however many variables might be found, there are better and worse choices; it will specify at least which is most appropriate, more likely which is acceptable, or, in its most rigorous application, which is correct. Clearly, the prescriptive approach is easier to teach—there is always one right answer; the descriptive approach may offer several possible answers, each appropriate in one or another context. This book uses both approaches. Users are seeking help, and they should find it. The problem is that a simplistic “correct” answer may seem helpful, but often when it appears to contradict users’ experience, they will either shrug off the prescription or find themselves unable to accept it. For example: to say succinctly that irregardless is not a word or at least that it ought to be treated as though it were not a word, is prescriptive. The “rule” being promulgated is: Don’t use irregardless; pretend it doesn’t exist, because, in fact, it’s not in Standard English. But, in fact, that’s not true. It is a word, and therefore it is in the dictionaries; many people use it, including some who in other respects speak Standard English. A descriptive account of the word will show who uses it and when, where, and why. Irregardless, it turns out, occurs regularly in Common and Vulgar English, but in Standard its only acceptable use is jocular. A descriptive account will end by pointing out that the inadvertent use of irregardless in Standard English can be a shibboleth. The prescriptive commentator then impatiently inquires, Why all the fuss? Why pussyfoot about? Just tell the world not to use irregardless—that’s simple, sound, and teachable. The descriptive commentator will offer at least two objections: (1) The word may be Substandard now, but you can’t be sure it won’t change in status. In fact it may be in the process of such change even now: it may be fading to an obsolete status (in which case we can stop talking about it), or it may someday become Standard. (2) Even more important, sometimes standard speakers do use irregardless; the issue is where and how. Even in spelling and pronunciation, where prescription may seem less problematic, description may sometimes be more nearly accurate. Prescription says judgment is the correct spelling, but description accurately points out that even Edited English considers judgement correct too. And although the teacher may prescribe DEK-uh-dent as the correct way to say decadent, the student will discover other teachers who say (also in Standard English) dee-KAI-dent. This book, as it must, uses both approaches, depending on the problem. See the entry on RULES AND GENERALIZATIONS for an account of the aptness of each approach to particular kinds of questions: Where real rules apply, prescription is the way to go. But much of grammar and most of usage require generalizations rather than rules, because what so often we must provide is some current best advice on a problem that is undergoing change even as we discuss it. Description faces up to complexity and raggedness and avoids simplistic glossing over of existing variation in pronunciations, forms, or meanings. Rigorous prescribers often charge describers with being permissive, and the countercharge of describers is that prescribers are simplistic, peddling half-truths and lies as though they were true. But in the end, a guide to usage must give advice, and so this manual prescribes for its users when it can. The difference is that it also explains such other experiences as users are likely to encounter and where possible explains what they mean. See also CONSERVATIVES IN LANGUAGE MATTERS; CONSERVATIVE USAGE; LIBERALS IN LANGUAGE MATTERS; LIBERAL USAGE; PURISTS. |
|
