0
Anonymous Posted 18 years ago
Linguistics Studies
When "an English" fails you.
Do you agree with this observation?
"So far as the language used furthers the writer's intended effect, it is good; so far as it fails to further that effect, it is bad, no matter how 'correct' it may be."
Professor Porter G. Perrin
"So far as the language used furthers the writer's intended effect, it is good; so far as it fails to further that effect, it is bad, no matter how 'correct' it may be."
Professor Porter G. Perrin
Top answer
Yes, always noting the rider " the writer's intended effect ".
- Yes, always noting the rider " the writer's intended effect ".
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
37 Answers
0
.
Yes, always noting the rider "the writer's intended effect".
Yes, always noting the rider "the writer's intended effect".
00
AnonymousDo you agree with this observation?Probably. But I wouldn't call that "bad language" or "good language". I would call the writer "a bad writer" or "a good writer".
00
Hi,
Consider the unpleasant example of a sexual pervert who writes a page of obscenities and mails it to a child.
The language furthers his intended effect, but surely it is only good from the writer's perspective.
Should we not also consider the perspective of the reader?
Best wishes, Clive
Consider the unpleasant example of a sexual pervert who writes a page of obscenities and mails it to a child.
The language furthers his intended effect, but surely it is only good from the writer's perspective.
Should we not also consider the perspective of the reader?
Best wishes, Clive
00
Anonymous"So far as the language used furthers the writer's intended effect, it is good; so far as it fails to further that effect, it is bad, no matter how 'correct' it may be."
It may well be "good/bad" in relation to the writer's "intended effect", to the extent that it promotes that effect or otherwise; but of course, in most cases, the reader has no way of kn
00
0
Did anyone ever accuse Kafka, Ginevra and Francesca ( di Lapo? 
) of "incorrect" language use?
See: "no matter how 'correct' it may be." above.
) of "incorrect" language use?See: "no matter how 'correct' it may be." above.
00
Anon Francesca di Lapo?No; Francesca da Polenta (or da Rimini).
AnonDid anyone ever accuse Kafka, Ginevra and Francesca...of "incorrect" language use?That wasn't really my point. As Barthes, Eliot, etc. have pointed out, a later text (or later events) may effectively modify an earlier text. Thus the episode of Paolo and F
00
Having regard to the heading of this thread, I take the professor's comments to be made in a context where he is discussing "Englishes" and not literary criticism. I think they are highly pertinent. One the one hand, it is perfectly in order for a community to adopt another language, do what they like with it and insist that their variety of it is "correct". On the other, if they do that, they ca
00
Well, Shakespeare did not use the "correct" English of his day. He invented thousands of new words and phrases, made creative use of regional dialects, and even introduced new grammatical constructions. But I think he (over)achieved his "intended effect" -- to entertain his contemporaries as well as many generations of successors.
00
ForbesI take the professor's comments to be made in a context where he is discussing "Englishes" and not literary criticism.How though do we assess the "intended effect" of an utterance, where we can't quiz the speaker?
MrP
0
Related Questions