David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” Reflection David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” begins by questioning the truth of the dictionary, democratic conversation, and arguing between “corruption” and “permissiveness.” Wallace uses Bryan Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, to prove that individuality can be separated from the mainstream interpretation to create an unbiased understanding of language. Using ADMAU as the focus for this ideal, Wallace questions the snoot, five edicts, New Critics, differing dialects, and the ability to understand as many English dialects as possible. Wallace ends by confirming the “most attractive thing about ADMAU’s Ethical Appeal . . . is Garner’s scrupulous consideration of the reader’s concern about his (or her) own linguistic authority” (58).
As Wallace introduces the importance of language, he confirms its necessity by reminding the reader “you can’t escape language; Language is everything and everywhere . . . it’s what separates us from the animals” (41). The emphasis that language is particularly human is a strong indication of its worth, and a warning to give language the respect it deserves. This is easily forgotten as society has grown to take advantage of language by throwing out the rules, and as Wallace mentions, stop teaching it all together in schools. Wallace seems to be smitten with the idea of the “snoot” in relation to this case because a snoot has care and respect for the rules of language. A snoot holds people in their place when they are speaking or writing and helps others (whether they want the help or not) become more clear in their intentions.
On the other side as humans, we question everything we come across, yet we do not question the dictionary or ask who declared each definition to be justified. Words and definitions have been “deemed ‘substandard’ or ‘incorrect’” by a never elected body of people (43). Then there’s the question of who gets to decide when the dictionary and language are officially in need of an update. Obviously, updates have occurred over time, as Wallace gives the example that if it did not we would all still be speaking like Chaucer (43), yet who and what decides that official fact? The ebb and flow of change within language relies on the society that speaks it and without a true “ruler” the society itself sets the rules. ADMAU also addresses the authority dilemma, bluntly saying that people want “sound guidance. And that requires judgment” which is subjective (43). So while a true authority figure is self-chosen, society also chooses who they want to listen to, and Wallace is suggesting we all listen to ADMAU.
Wallace also brings attention to the difference between meaningful and grammatical, noting that the rules grammar puts into place “serve clarity and precision” (48). Orally speaking to one another versus written conversation allows the speaker to convey themselves entirely differently instead of complicating their true meaning by the recipient. Speaking face to face allows for the recipient to process not only the words but the delivery and added meaning. Written language can do the same thing, but is only truly clear when written grammatically correct. This simple understanding is what creates an array of English vernacular. “People really do ‘judge’ one another according to their use of language” (50). How one is regarded is based solely on how they handle language and interaction. Language can come with acceptance or immediate denial. Wallace mentions this not only as information but as a view into how language grows and can evolve through different social classes and populations.
As Wallace ends his probe of linguistic authority, the purposes of expert authority and reader authority become a question of which one to trust. ADMAU confirms that these two sides are identical and when used together can create a democratic experience that keeps changing with society.
As Wallace introduces the importance of language, he confirms its necessity by reminding the reader “you can’t escape language; Language is everything and everywhere . . . it’s what separates us from the animals” (41). The emphasis that language is particularly human is a strong indication of its worth, and a warning to give language the respect it deserves. This is easily forgotten as society has grown to take advantage of language by throwing out the rules, and as Wallace mentions, stop teaching it all together in schools. Wallace seems to be smitten with the idea of the “snoot” in relation to this case because a snoot has care and respect for the rules of language. A snoot holds people in their place when they are speaking or writing and helps others (whether they want the help or not) become more clear in their intentions.
On the other side as humans, we question everything we come across, yet we do not question the dictionary or ask who declared each definition to be justified. Words and definitions have been “deemed ‘substandard’ or ‘incorrect’” by a never elected body of people (43). Then there’s the question of who gets to decide when the dictionary and language are officially in need of an update. Obviously, updates have occurred over time, as Wallace gives the example that if it did not we would all still be speaking like Chaucer (43), yet who and what decides that official fact? The ebb and flow of change within language relies on the society that speaks it and without a true “ruler” the society itself sets the rules. ADMAU also addresses the authority dilemma, bluntly saying that people want “sound guidance. And that requires judgment” which is subjective (43). So while a true authority figure is self-chosen, society also chooses who they want to listen to, and Wallace is suggesting we all listen to ADMAU.
Wallace also brings attention to the difference between meaningful and grammatical, noting that the rules grammar puts into place “serve clarity and precision” (48). Orally speaking to one another versus written conversation allows the speaker to convey themselves entirely differently instead of complicating their true meaning by the recipient. Speaking face to face allows for the recipient to process not only the words but the delivery and added meaning. Written language can do the same thing, but is only truly clear when written grammatically correct. This simple understanding is what creates an array of English vernacular. “People really do ‘judge’ one another according to their use of language” (50). How one is regarded is based solely on how they handle language and interaction. Language can come with acceptance or immediate denial. Wallace mentions this not only as information but as a view into how language grows and can evolve through different social classes and populations.
As Wallace ends his probe of linguistic authority, the purposes of expert authority and reader authority become a question of which one to trust. ADMAU confirms that these two sides are identical and when used together can create a democratic experience that keeps changing with society.
No comments:
Post a Comment