summary of interview with Dr. Tribbey

This is the summary of the interview Laurie Schweinle and i conducted with Dr. Tribbey on the fifth of September:

On “literal meaning and it's 'decline'”:
“We can’t have science without literal meaning. But when has there ever been literal meaning in literature?” We have to be more open minded about meaning, especially when dealing with the Humanities such as philosophy and history. According to Dr. Tribbey, “Humans do not live in a world of Literal Meaning”
The reason for no literal meaning: values. Humans live with structures of values and different people have different values.

On “this trend and the declining interest in grammar instruction”
Dr. Tribbey moves away from Grammar A in his work, preferring the radical Grammar B for creative purposes. He sees grammar as “culturally coded” and prefers to deny the assumptions of grammar. In Western culture, grammar is “I” centered. In science, there is a movement away from the autonomous self. But grammar still assumes the autonomous self.
Dr. Tribbey paraphrases Joe Amato, the writer of Industrial Poetics. What we think of as “self” is a product of history and cultures not an “individual self”. Tribbey qualifies with the need of an “individual self” because “it would be a spooky world without ‘individual self”. Also, Grammar B may trigger creativity but Grammar A “gets you a job.”

In conclusion:
Dr. Tribbey confesses he is not a “grammar cop” when it comes to teaching but regular grammar is really about social advancement.

"Dogmatic than Democratic"

This was hilarious. I didn’t even really mind the three point five hours I spent with the dictionary in my lap. My college career would have gone by a good deal faster if there were more authors with such an engaging writing ability… and modesty. I understood him, I learned from him. I probably will not ever sit for that long under that weight again, but I might. I realize we are not to be writing essays in these blogs because blogs are not supposed to be boring, so, here are my notes.
* Dysphemisms – according to my roommate’s Webster-not-sure-what-edition – these are substitutions of a disagreeable, offensive, disparaging expression for an agreeable or inoffensice one. Like euphemism, only mean. NOW, others may know.
* “We judge them accordingly” - THESIS
* Language as a weapon – using language correctly, smugly with superior intellect has no meaning if a non-dangling participle remains unrecognized. The criticisms of the grammarless remain superior due to the sheer masses of the not knowing and the not caring. Grammar is like curling, on the Canadians recognize and 8 ender and only the Canadians can really enjoy it.
* Dogma – 1a) something held as established opinion. 1b) a code of such tenets (pedagogical). 1c) a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. 2) a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.
*Democracy – rule of the majority
* “You don’t want dispassionate descriptions; you want sound guidance. And that requires judgment.” Leaders lead, followers follow and if no one is there to set the pace = chaos. The problem with the leading and the following is misdirection. Sometimes judgment is bad judgment and sometimes judgment comes with hidden agenda. Leaders want to stay in the lead. This situation is all about ratio, (who knew Monty Python would be right about anything more than timing.) there are so many followers and only a handful of leaders. The best way to control the population is the manipulation of fear. The best way to instill fear is violence or mockery. Last I heard, Grammar Nazis didn’t carry Uzis.
*Ethical Appeal – is a key example of a leader’s m. o.
*I want to read Webster’s 2nd before I read Webster’s 3rd (the introductory essays)
*My page eight was the introduction to the Descriptivist or “pasitivists” which is either a typo or a mix of positivist and pacifist. This does not matter; all I could think about was the massive amounts of weed these people are smoking and the probability they know the lyrics to “Make ‘em say Uh, na nah na nah”. That is not sarcasm, that is experience and I empathized with their point of view, I also understood/acknowledge the opposite point “People really do ‘judge’ one another according to their use of language.”
*Who can argue about the pant/skirt analogy? No one can. It is irrefutable.
****I acknowledge my notes are going on forever…so a summation: When trying to get a point across – in writing – in advertising – applying for a job – Absolute correctness is Absolutely Positive but... it does not endear you to your peers. If we as people are to be judged by other people (groups vs. individual, groups vs. groups) on these arbitrary matters such as race, creed or communication skills, where is the margin for error. In my opinion, based on observation, the people judged more harshly are the people who ignore the error margin. Like Wallace said, speaking different dialects, the SWE is expecting a swing back and forth from academia to Americanized English. The people who fit in with the majority are the ones who ignore grammar dogma, accept the error margin and adapt democracy. This proves their humanity and establishes connections (like Wallace’s humor, improper grammar is appealing).
***A conclusion: A closet die hard grammaticism wanting to fit in with the grammarless public language, outvoted by the majority, must adapt a private dogma or realize it means nothing and become a nihilist