(June 13, 2012 at 11:09 am)whateverist Wrote: What I meant was it is possible to be an expert speaker of English without formal knowledge of the parts of speech and how they are supposed to function. I don't think it is a matter of whether you study the subject on your own or in a formal setting. I'm saying you needn't acquire the formal analytical knowledge of the parts of speech in order to speak it expertly. Those who grow up where speech patterns are atypical will become expert speakers of some aberrant dialect even if they never seek to analyze the dialect formally.
That is where you are wrong - especially if one is "burdened" by knowledge of another language. Every language has its own intricate structure and rules of usage. Without any formal training in it, you'd be left to figure out that structure and those rules on your own. Further, those rules are fluid and not universally applicable. To expect someone to figure it all out by himself and be able to use them is a versatile manner is unreasonable. If you want a practical demonstration, watch the Star War movies and try to do the Yoda-speak and figure out how many times you get it right.
(June 13, 2012 at 11:09 am)whateverist Wrote: This is a good point and one I failed to address. Yes, both in acquiring a moral sense and in becoming an expert speaker of a language, there is a period of acquisition when the mature practitioners around you help you acquire their expertise. However it wouldn't matter if any of those practitioners had any formal, analytic understanding of their expertise so long as they were expert practitioners.
That is a contradiction right there - how would they be experts if they never had any formal training?
(June 13, 2012 at 11:09 am)whateverist Wrote: In early childhood one isn't too worried about fine tuning: "kicking isn't nice", "don't bite Billy", and so on. Inevitably this gets generalized into something like the Golden Rule. Likewise we correct poor language use but most of us would not need to consider what is wrong with "gooder" in order to make the correction; so not knowing how to classify formally what is wrong with it is no hindrance to providing the guidance needed to raise another expert speaker.
What you fail to understand is that the fact that "gooder" is wrong, is, in itself, a part of formal knowledge. So any correction on that point is automatically training you in formal English.
(June 13, 2012 at 11:09 am)whateverist Wrote: A more interesting question for me is what role a formal, analytic understanding should play in our actual use of language or moral choice once we have matured into expert practitioners ourselves. Surely thinking incessantly about the formal structure of what you are saying would be a great distraction in communicating what you have to say. In the end one would like to benefit from expert usage for the sake of effective communication, not for the sake of show casing the manner of speech. Perhaps the situation is parallel for morality. In the end I want to conduct myself in a way that is respectful of everyone, but myself included. I wouldn't wish for a world in which everyone was continually engrossed by the possible ramifications of every action. I would wish for them -and so too myself- some degree of spontaneity and playfulness. So perhaps it is best if moral thinking too becomes transparent in the end.
That statement is like saying "what role does high-school biology play once you have become a doctor?". The reason an expert in any field has to undergo formal training is to internalize the knowledge that training imparts. The reason why show-casing the manner of speech is considered the mark of an expert is because it shows the capacity of the expert to communicate the idea in many different forms. And once he has that capacity, he has the option of choosing the most effective form, according to the situation, without having to strain himself.
The point of internalizing all that knowledge is to be able to use it almost intuitively. The same goes for morality. Once you have internalized the basic concepts, you can judge an action to be right or wrong almost intuitively. Remember, it isn't actual intuition, since the knowledge is not automatic, but learned. It seems intuitive simply because of the ease by which you can access and process it.
