We received the copy of the article Oaf of Office by Steven Pinker in class today. It was really interesting to read about the flubber made on Tuesday by Chief Justice John Roberts. I recollect that when we were watching the inauguaration we just thought it was pretty funny how they messed up the presidential oath. Pinker explains Roberts' mistake and also discusses the issue of some easily made grammatical errors later in his article. He specifies that split infinitives and the misplacement of adverbs and modifiers to be common errors prevailing in most people's writings.
Are these seemingly minor errors significant enough that we have to correct them every time we encounter them? Wouldn't it be easier if we accept these as correct forms for practicality reasons? Most people still understand what the sentence means even with some minor grammatical errors. Isn't language supposed to be practical by its definition?
Lastly, I thought it was pretty interesting that President Obama had to repeat the oath again on Wednesday although technically he became President on Tuesday even before he had to make the oath officially. I related this incident to the topic discussed in Hayakawa's book related to the importance of rituals and ceremonies. Was it really necessary for Obama to swear solmenly that he will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States again?
Jennifer Park
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Perhaps it was necessary as a precaution. In a society so obsessed with tradition, especially concerning our government and politics, critics are likely to point out any little flaw, even a relatively simple semantic one. Tradition and ceremony lend legitimacy to events and the people in them, so messing up tradition might possibly somehow de-legitimize the people.
You could argue that semantics and reality do not mix, but the general population does not want to acknowledge, or perhaps is not even aware of, the difference between the symbol and the thing symbolized. This increases the importance placed on the semantics--the recitation of the oath--more than Obama's actual transition from US Senator to US President. They need to see the physical evidence of the abstract action and thus even a small error regarding the wording transcends the level of a semantic hiccup.
I understand why such a grammatical error may irritate people such as Pinker, but I don't think that it should be that significant, especially if the meaning of the sentence is still contains the same meaning. Even if I write sentences with adverbs in the 'wrong' place continually, you still can understand what I'm trying to say (although that may not help my grade).
In my opinion, errors like misplaced modifiers and adverbs are indeed quite insignificant when it comes to simply getting a point across. However, like Mary I also understand that some people, particularly semanticists or those who teach grammar, may find more fault with such errors. It seems as if this is yet another decision that is up to our individual perceptions.
While I do believe that minor errors need not be corrected at every instant, I think that the presidential oath is a situation that must be considered apart from writing or speaking in everyday life. Because this oath is such a tradition, as Grace mentioned, it is simply expected that the oath be administered in the EXACT same manner each time, and if a semantic error occurs, it is expected that the oath be administered a second time to correct that error. Would a written version of the oath (a sentence) be "wrong" because an adverb was misplaced? Of course not. However, Mr. Obama's oath was STATED differently, and a misstated public oath that is supposed to be repeated verbatim is not well accepted. This is why Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time.
In the beginning of the article, Pinker recounts how Princess Diana reversed the name of her husband during her wedding vows. The marital union between English royals is seen as a very ritualistic event, anticipated by many. If these vows had been said incorrectly at any wedding of an average citizen of society, it would not have earned such attention. Thus, the conclusions of my fellow classmates all make sense. The "Oaf of Office" became susceptible to such commotion because of the setting in which it was said. And of course, Chief Justice John Roberts has ironically had a rough history with Obama. Thus, critics unfamiliar with semantics would base the mistake on some "behind the scenes" drama rather than a habit of human nature.
But that leads me to this question: as students of Hayakawa's LITAA, would we have been able to figure this out after laughing at the error? I fear that we, too, took the error as just a mere mistake related to nervous feelings. I don't think that I would have ever thought too much into the matter.
I daresay I'm not too politically inclined..so is it ritualistic for the oath to be said a second time? Or was it just done this way to make up for the mistake the previous day? I'm terribly sorry if my question sounds ignorant.
But either way, not only is this a significant ritual, but it is also a special case. Our first African American president! So just imagine how important the ceremony is..we're making history.
(Sam Maliha)
It all goes back to what Mr. Lazarow said a few months ago, when we were discussing such constructions as "aint" and ebonics. As we discussed, if a certain arrangement still makes logical sense and is easier to say, why not say it?
Well, as a grammar nazi, the notion that ungrammatical mistakes could be all right at first set off alarm bells ringing in my head. But later, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Language is supposed to adapt and evolve, and if something makes sense, is said by a lot of people, and is easier to say, doesn't it become part of the language?
But of course, the whole idea of what "language" is can be subjective, and some people such as Roberts adhere to some of the more debatable rules. Hence, he ended up editing the words of our esteemed Founding Fathers from hundreds of years ago in an attempt to satisfy the little captious (vocab word!) editor sitting in his head.
Oops...I forgot to write my name on the third comment! My apologies.
(Janet Lee)
To go along with what Janet said earlier, I think the whole event was blown up because of the significance it had. I believe Justice John Roberts just made an honest mistake due to his subconscious need for grammatical perfection. I believe that the only reason they redid the oath at all was for purely political motives. I believe John Roberts did it almost as an act of apology for messing the oath up the first time. I also believe, like Janet stated, that because this is a public oath it is looked down upon when mistakes are made. I think that in many people’s minds it’s not “official” until the oath is given properly. This is because humans are creatures of habit and repetition and to have an oath given that was less than normal would be to go against what society deems as “proper, normal, or correct.” For this reason John Roberts re-administered the oath; he was just trying to correct the mistake that would have many people disgruntled had it not been corrected.
(Kevin Trainer)
I think it's so interesting how in everday conversation, we split infinitives and misplace adverbs all over the place. Usually it's not a big deal, and the listener gets the jist of what we're saying. It's funny, though, how immediately when something is said publicly people start to analyze and criticize, and suddenly grammar becomes important.
The case with Obama's oath is an interesting one. When I read how the oath was supposed to go and how it actually came out, the latter doesn't sound as nice, but, unless Obama had stuttered, I don't think anyone would have really taken notice. But, would the meaning have changed? Is the meaning only how we Americans interpret it? I guess the point of readministering the oath was to avoid these questions...
Emily T.
Post a Comment