[Vocabulary] Speak a little louder/loudly

[Aamir Tariq]

Okay, thanks. If I continue dealing with queries on this forum, I'll try to follow your lead until I get a better sense of the customs and culture here. Maybe I'll avoid using the word 'correct' completely!


P.S. I apologise to Aamir The Global Citizen for hijacking his post.

You don't have to. You guys can go on, I am enjoying the argument you are having and there is a lot to learn from it.

 

[jutfrank]

Piscean -

I'm glad you brought up the distinction of form and function because this goes precisely to the heart of what I'm trying to show.

Look - in the example phrase Speak a little louder, the word louder may look like an adjective (in form) but it is functioning as an adverb. Isn't this the whole point of the discussion?

Now what I think I'm contributing to the thread is this: When we use the term 'adjective', we are referring to the grammatical role of a word/phrase in use. This is its function, which, for an adjective, might be to modify a noun. This is why, in my judgement, the form is irrelevant. So for me a word cannot be both an adverb and an adjective simultaneously, but can serve only one of these functions in any one instance, as it stands in use. In our example it doesn't matter that louder looks like an adjective because it isn't.

Regarding dictionaries - they're not telling you that there's an adjective fast and an adverb fast, as if they're two different words. They're saying that there's one word with two different uses - either as adjective or adverb.

If you disagree with anything I've said, could you please explain how.

 

[jutfrank]

Your terminology is a little confusing.

Are you suggesting I'm saying that "You ain't seen nuthin' yet" is grammatically correct? (I'm not - it isn't.)

Of You ain't not seen nothing yet:

To a descriptive linguist, both may be grammatical (and You yet seen have nothingt is ungrammatical). To a teacher or style-guide writer, neither of the sentences you mention is (grammatically) correct.

I don't know why you mention descriptive linguists. As such I don't presume they would be particularly interested in saying that something is grammatical. That would be more for a grammarian or teacher.

It's not my terminology, but I would suggest we try to resist using the phrase grammatically correct, instead preferring grammatical/ungrammatical to apply to whether something adheres or not to the rules of grammar. Otherwise we could use appropriate/acceptable/permissible/natural. e.t.c. Just a suggestion.

 

[GoesStation]

I hesitated to use the word correct, too. After thinking it over, I decided that learners aren't interested in the subtleties that would favor grammatical or other terms; they just want to know whether they're going to embarrass themselves with a particular usage. Correct is easy to understand. When a sentence is a border case, I try to explain where it would or wouldn't be appropriate.

 

[jutfrank]

I think you make a valid general point about learners not wanting to embarrass themselves, but I do know many people actually are interested in the subtleties. This is especially true of natives and higher-level second language learners. I guess that part of being a good teacher is judging what and how much to say in order to be as clear/helpful as possible to each specific person.

 

[Barb_D]

It is a constant balancing act.
Does the person want to know what will not be marked wrong on an exam?
Does the person want to know what is the most natural way to say something?
Does the person want to win a bet that something is "right" regardless of who awkward it sounds?
Does the person want to feel they are going to get through a conversation without embarrassment even if they aren't totally fluent yet?
Does the person want to know if the email that they already sent will at least be understood even if it wasn't perfect?

We get all types here. Sometimes we answer the "What sounds the most natural" way only to be chided that they simply wanted to know if they would win the bet they made that something was not absolutely incorrect.

And that doesn't even cover all the incredibly awkward "no native would ever say this" passive constructions.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

When we are talking on the phone and we can't hear the person talking on the other side either because of too much noise around you or if he/she is speaking quietly. And you want him/her to speak with a louder voice, how would you say that?

Speak a little louder.
Speak a little loudly.

Regards
Aamir the Global Citizen

"Speak louder" is ungrammatical but common and fine for casual conversation.
"Speak a little loudly" doesn't make much sense.
"Speak a little more loudly" is correct standard English.

 

[GoesStation]

"Speak louder" is ungrammatical but common and fine for casual conversation.

I don't agree. Some authorities try to make louder an adjective and only an adjective. Actions speak louder than words, though; the word has been used as an adverb for centuries.