Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Another Odd <a href="http://slate.com/id/2117840/";>Bushism</a>:
I'm pleased to mention again that Slate has indeed finally started
providing links to original sources -- often streaming video and
audio, which is especially useful -- when it picks on President Bush's
alleged Bushisms. That happened, I think, a month or two ago, and it
continues to be the case.
But the substance of the Bushisms continues to appear often quibbling
and sometimes baffling. Here's today's:
"We expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving
simple objectives -- like literacy, literacy in math, the ability
to read and write." -- on federal education requirements,
Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
What exactly is the problem here? If the joke is that "literacy in
math" is wrong, then the error is in the joke, not Bush's statement;
"literacy" is defined to include "The condition or quality of being
knowledgeable in a particular subject or field." I don't find
"literacy in math" to be the most elegant usage, but I don't think
it's particularly risible, either. A search for [1]"math literacy"
suggests that many others agree. My guess is that the President
started saying literacy, then realized he wanted to also mention math,
so he used the not uncommon concept of "literacy in math" to make
clear that he wasn't just focusing on purely reading-and-writing
literacy.
Or maybe the problem is that Bush omitted an "and." Bush's statement
can just as plausibly be transcribed (given the timing of the pauses,
probably more plausibly transcribed) as:
We expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving
simple objectives, like literacy -- literacy in math, the ability
to read and write.
Maybe there should have been an "and" between "literacy in math" and
"the ability to read and write."
But even perfectly articulate people often speak more choppily than
they'd write; and sometimes even in writing, people omit the
conjunction in a list for rhetorical effect (though that usually
happens in a list of three or more).
And more broadly, very few people can be relied on being constantly
elegant, or even constantly grammatically correct, in extended
extemporaneous commentary. I like to think that I'm a pretty
articulate user of English, but I've shuddered when reading
transcripts of what I say. I wager the same is true for many other
speakers. What's funny, insightful, or otherwise valuable about
picking on Bush for something like this?
References
1.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22math+literacy%22&btnG=Google+Search
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
