Of course we need to teach Standard Written English in schools. It should be important for every person who is so kindly forced to tread through the swamps of hell known as grade school to at least understand how to effectively communicate and be understood. I'd also be a little pissed if I had lived through junior high and high school just to graduate and be no wiser to the things essential in continuing my education, communicating with my peers, and generally living life while being understood. At the very least, all the little kiddies need to learn how to communicate to a wider audience just to up their chances on obtaining a mate and producing spawn.
We've learned, in this grammar course alone, that Standard Written English helps us communicate in a current and understandable way, that also allows our thoughts and ideas to be understood for years to come. Learning how to write in the socially and culturally accepted language, regardless of what that language is, should innately better someone. Just like with my thoughts before studying the opinions of the battle-hardened scholars interested in grammar, I still believe that being understood is the meaning of language. However, instead of accepting our naturally picked up sense of language to get us by, I now see the importance of learning the widely accepted "accurate" form of the language.
From what we have learned so far, I would assume that the best teaching method to assign to teaching SWE would be starting out with the fundamentals. To begin, the student should understand a common array of words and their meanings. They should also have the knowledge of grammar picked up from those surrounding them. From that, you could build up their knowledge of grammar, in order to aid them in understanding everything they will be learning about the language. After they have a good solid foundation, then it would be best to start in on effectively expressing your own ideas and interpreting other individual's ideas as well.
It almost seems like common sense that you must know how a language works before you can do any sort of expressing with it.
But, I do believe that I wasn't taught enough about grammar at an earlier age. This has probably been a detriment to me, and anyone else in the same boat.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The following is an effort to summarize "The Scandal of Prescriptivism" by David Mulroy.
Currently, there are negative stereotypes associated with those who use grammar incorrectly, and those concerned with correct usage. Most of the grammatical mistakes made today are found within the groups of children, the poor, and minorities. This strengthens the negative stereotypes associated with incorrect grammar usage. Also, those who are preoccupied with correctness are often seen as old, stuck up, and arbitrary. Despite these negative associations, the continuation of a solid, correct dialect is still useful.
Having one accepted appropriate broadens the numbers of people one can effectively communicate with. To understand how that is so, consider what Caxton wrote in the preface to his Eneydos translation, within which a fellow travels not-so-far from home and eventually asks a lady for eggs. The women replies to him that she can not speak French, when in reality, neither of the two could, the lack of understanding spawned from the differences in the English dialects at the time.
The need for a common dialect was and is apparent. In the past, it was difficult attempting to unite everyone under one dialect, until the popularity of dictionaries allowed everyone to study one grammatical dialect.
[Insert quote from Pinker's piece which we have just read for class, then insert a subsequent quote from an Illinois professor by the name of Hook, and finally insert the debilitating counter-points that both writers do not directly cite those whom they attack, but instead use pop-culture references to prove their points, as opposed to the more tasteful use of Bible versus and such.]
Some points that Pinker brought up in opposition to prescriptivist ideas are correct, and some are wrong or inappropriate for the point being made. His idea that we all communicate effectively and grammatically through natural and unlearned methods is denied by the fact that while writing the piece to prove the point, Pinker exhibits appropriate use of punctuation and grammatical features not possibly known with having been taught. The idea that grammar is entirely instinctual is unlikely.
Resulting from the popular fad of bashing grammatical correctness and its being taught, teachers are trained to be nice, and avoid possibly offending children by not correcting their grammatical mistakes.
This is greatly ineffective in continuing a solid central dialect. There is, however, a popular reason for learning our current standard dialect (SWE). It is said that if one wants to make it in the business or academic world, one must understand the language or dialect used by those parties. This is actually a cynical way to look at it, because it assumes that understanding the central dialect has no uses other than to gain popularity with groups (when in fact, there are greater reasons to understand SWE, or whatever the standard is for your language).
Currently, there are negative stereotypes associated with those who use grammar incorrectly, and those concerned with correct usage. Most of the grammatical mistakes made today are found within the groups of children, the poor, and minorities. This strengthens the negative stereotypes associated with incorrect grammar usage. Also, those who are preoccupied with correctness are often seen as old, stuck up, and arbitrary. Despite these negative associations, the continuation of a solid, correct dialect is still useful.
Having one accepted appropriate broadens the numbers of people one can effectively communicate with. To understand how that is so, consider what Caxton wrote in the preface to his Eneydos translation, within which a fellow travels not-so-far from home and eventually asks a lady for eggs. The women replies to him that she can not speak French, when in reality, neither of the two could, the lack of understanding spawned from the differences in the English dialects at the time.
The need for a common dialect was and is apparent. In the past, it was difficult attempting to unite everyone under one dialect, until the popularity of dictionaries allowed everyone to study one grammatical dialect.
[Insert quote from Pinker's piece which we have just read for class, then insert a subsequent quote from an Illinois professor by the name of Hook, and finally insert the debilitating counter-points that both writers do not directly cite those whom they attack, but instead use pop-culture references to prove their points, as opposed to the more tasteful use of Bible versus and such.]
Some points that Pinker brought up in opposition to prescriptivist ideas are correct, and some are wrong or inappropriate for the point being made. His idea that we all communicate effectively and grammatically through natural and unlearned methods is denied by the fact that while writing the piece to prove the point, Pinker exhibits appropriate use of punctuation and grammatical features not possibly known with having been taught. The idea that grammar is entirely instinctual is unlikely.
Resulting from the popular fad of bashing grammatical correctness and its being taught, teachers are trained to be nice, and avoid possibly offending children by not correcting their grammatical mistakes.
This is greatly ineffective in continuing a solid central dialect. There is, however, a popular reason for learning our current standard dialect (SWE). It is said that if one wants to make it in the business or academic world, one must understand the language or dialect used by those parties. This is actually a cynical way to look at it, because it assumes that understanding the central dialect has no uses other than to gain popularity with groups (when in fact, there are greater reasons to understand SWE, or whatever the standard is for your language).
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Professor Hada's view on literal meaning
Perhaps literal meanings have fallen into doubt because of two factors:
1) A rebirth of fundamentalism, i.e., a knee-jerk appeal by the masses to resist the mis-perceived, out-of-touch academics who read into everything. So the masses, cling to something that is one-dimensional to validate themselves and by contrast, distinguish themselves from the so-called elites. Thus, academics, tend to distrust all the more, one dimensional readings.
2) And closely related, with the arrival of the 60's and the advent of post-modernism, many theoretical scholars became enamored with theory at the expense of text. This is a pendulum swingfrom the formalist, new-critics, and some theorists went to the opposite extremes whereby they sacrificed the plain meaning of a text on the alter of extravagant theory. This pushed literalness even further into the shadows. I tend to be more descriptionist than prescriptive. Prescriptive tends to take on overtones of directing and controlling thought. I think there is a time and place for both, but generally, I shy from manipulation. Grammar, then, has in post-modern times, been seen as prescriptive, as validating an ethnocentric view of a privileged class, and thus, in the spirit of times, has become less emphasized.
(In my opinion, Dr. Hada seems to be saying that literal meanings have fallen into the background due to the need of the non-academics to seperate themselves from the "elitist", as well as the post-modern push towards theory rather than plain-text readings. On a side note, he brings up how the two polar opposite schools of literal and theoretic seem to strengthen the followers of one or the other. In other words, those who read things literally do so to seperate themselves from the theoretical readers, and vice versa - each finding a need to think the way they do by the very existence of the opposing view. It's almost like an academic-commoner gang war.)
1) A rebirth of fundamentalism, i.e., a knee-jerk appeal by the masses to resist the mis-perceived, out-of-touch academics who read into everything. So the masses, cling to something that is one-dimensional to validate themselves and by contrast, distinguish themselves from the so-called elites. Thus, academics, tend to distrust all the more, one dimensional readings.
2) And closely related, with the arrival of the 60's and the advent of post-modernism, many theoretical scholars became enamored with theory at the expense of text. This is a pendulum swingfrom the formalist, new-critics, and some theorists went to the opposite extremes whereby they sacrificed the plain meaning of a text on the alter of extravagant theory. This pushed literalness even further into the shadows. I tend to be more descriptionist than prescriptive. Prescriptive tends to take on overtones of directing and controlling thought. I think there is a time and place for both, but generally, I shy from manipulation. Grammar, then, has in post-modern times, been seen as prescriptive, as validating an ethnocentric view of a privileged class, and thus, in the spirit of times, has become less emphasized.
(In my opinion, Dr. Hada seems to be saying that literal meanings have fallen into the background due to the need of the non-academics to seperate themselves from the "elitist", as well as the post-modern push towards theory rather than plain-text readings. On a side note, he brings up how the two polar opposite schools of literal and theoretic seem to strengthen the followers of one or the other. In other words, those who read things literally do so to seperate themselves from the theoretical readers, and vice versa - each finding a need to think the way they do by the very existence of the opposing view. It's almost like an academic-commoner gang war.)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Pinker? Yes please.
(Inappropriate opinion-based response)
I really liked the chances this Pinker fellow took. He made bold statements about the proper-usage of English, and took a couple of stabs at conservative elitist views on grammar (take that SNOOTS).
The first example to come to mind, in regards to proper-usage, involved a parent-child dispute. "I could care less," the child says. Pinker believes the parent might point out how that is an incorrect way to get that point across. If you COULD care less, you do. You are trying to say that you care the least amount you can, which should be said, "I couldn't care less," (or, "I don't care.") Pinker pokes the parent in the eye with the idea that the angst-filled child is employing sarcasm. Oh, the greatness that is sarcasm. The children are saying they could care less, but meaning the opposite. Pinker believes this is because we all have an innate and natural grasp of correctness, as far as language.
As much as I like that idea, and as much as it might be true, I don't think it's true here. I think the parent doesn't see it as sarcasm. This is not a common sarcastic phrase. Not even the child sees it as sarcasm. I have personally never heard either version of the phrase spoken sarcastically. This mistake really is a mistake.
The eye-poke I was most fond of in this article? The poke in the face of British aristocrats, and consequently, current day SNOOTS. Pinker pointed out that the current-day elitist view on grammar and language dates back to the 18th century. Back in old London, all the old fogies wanted to distinguish themselves from the fodder through use of their great language: English. At the time, Latin was regarded as divine and enlightened, so they decided then to incorporate aspects of Latin into English. Unfortunately for us, the languages are greatly different, grammatically.
This is the root of all the grammatical problems we have today, according to Pinker. I believe that, for the most part, it makes sense. Pinker gives multiple examples of "improper usage" and explains how correct it actually is logically. Usually you can see a line drawn directly back to these early days of elitist SNOOTism.
I really liked the chances this Pinker fellow took. He made bold statements about the proper-usage of English, and took a couple of stabs at conservative elitist views on grammar (take that SNOOTS).
The first example to come to mind, in regards to proper-usage, involved a parent-child dispute. "I could care less," the child says. Pinker believes the parent might point out how that is an incorrect way to get that point across. If you COULD care less, you do. You are trying to say that you care the least amount you can, which should be said, "I couldn't care less," (or, "I don't care.") Pinker pokes the parent in the eye with the idea that the angst-filled child is employing sarcasm. Oh, the greatness that is sarcasm. The children are saying they could care less, but meaning the opposite. Pinker believes this is because we all have an innate and natural grasp of correctness, as far as language.
As much as I like that idea, and as much as it might be true, I don't think it's true here. I think the parent doesn't see it as sarcasm. This is not a common sarcastic phrase. Not even the child sees it as sarcasm. I have personally never heard either version of the phrase spoken sarcastically. This mistake really is a mistake.
The eye-poke I was most fond of in this article? The poke in the face of British aristocrats, and consequently, current day SNOOTS. Pinker pointed out that the current-day elitist view on grammar and language dates back to the 18th century. Back in old London, all the old fogies wanted to distinguish themselves from the fodder through use of their great language: English. At the time, Latin was regarded as divine and enlightened, so they decided then to incorporate aspects of Latin into English. Unfortunately for us, the languages are greatly different, grammatically.
This is the root of all the grammatical problems we have today, according to Pinker. I believe that, for the most part, it makes sense. Pinker gives multiple examples of "improper usage" and explains how correct it actually is logically. Usually you can see a line drawn directly back to these early days of elitist SNOOTism.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Report/Response for Beason's Study
The goal of this study was to record the reactions of 14 business people after having read a text with purposefully placed errors. More accurately, the goal was to derive the severity of reactions to certain types of errors of writing in a post-academic setting. An emphasis was placed on the impact on the ethos of the author.
The reasoning behind doing the study was that students will eventually finish their academic career, at which time what is expected of them, as far as writing, is changed - because the audience is changed. The stated change of audience is from professors and teachers to bosses and colleagues. Also, as the article states, the purpose of being taught how to write in college is to be effectively understood through writing when finished with college.
The errors placed within the text consisted of: fragments, mis-spellings (one lesser mis-spelling and three very apparent mis-spellings), fused sentences, and quotation mark errors.
To record the responses, there was a written survey followed by an interview done personally by the researcher (Beason).
The study found, or at least suggested, that "the extent to which errors harm the writer's image is more serious and far reaching than many students and teachers might realize."
My response to this? Of course it effects the writer's image negatively. I don't see how this effect is underestimated. If I read something pot-marked with errors, both apparent and hard to notice, I'd question the intelligence of the author - at least their literary intelligence. Especially in today's world of word processors and spell check, mistakes are hard to make. As I write this, my browser, Mozilla Firefox, informs me of my errors. Just earlier I spelled "realize" as "realise". That is how easy it is to correct yourself. Automated correcting programs aside, I can still see how a constant barrage of mistakes in a writing can negatively effect the audience's view of the author. It's almost the same effect that a Professor at Oxford would get when talking to a family of backwoods hillbillies.
Of course, with that analogy in place, feel free to call me Dewayne Leroy Jenkins.
The reasoning behind doing the study was that students will eventually finish their academic career, at which time what is expected of them, as far as writing, is changed - because the audience is changed. The stated change of audience is from professors and teachers to bosses and colleagues. Also, as the article states, the purpose of being taught how to write in college is to be effectively understood through writing when finished with college.
The errors placed within the text consisted of: fragments, mis-spellings (one lesser mis-spelling and three very apparent mis-spellings), fused sentences, and quotation mark errors.
To record the responses, there was a written survey followed by an interview done personally by the researcher (Beason).
The study found, or at least suggested, that "the extent to which errors harm the writer's image is more serious and far reaching than many students and teachers might realize."
My response to this? Of course it effects the writer's image negatively. I don't see how this effect is underestimated. If I read something pot-marked with errors, both apparent and hard to notice, I'd question the intelligence of the author - at least their literary intelligence. Especially in today's world of word processors and spell check, mistakes are hard to make. As I write this, my browser, Mozilla Firefox, informs me of my errors. Just earlier I spelled "realize" as "realise". That is how easy it is to correct yourself. Automated correcting programs aside, I can still see how a constant barrage of mistakes in a writing can negatively effect the audience's view of the author. It's almost the same effect that a Professor at Oxford would get when talking to a family of backwoods hillbillies.
Of course, with that analogy in place, feel free to call me Dewayne Leroy Jenkins.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Report on Wallace's "Tense Present"
This article mainly addresses the issues brought about by the conflicting ideologies within the English language. More specifically, the article addresses the question of which is the most effective and correct way to handle contemporary American usage of the English language.
The author, David Foster Wallace, submits his idea of the "Democratic Spirit" as the answer to the question.
He defines the Democratic Spirit in the following way: "A Democratic Spirit is one that combines rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus sedulous respect for the convictions of others."
With this, he is referring to his belief that anyone in the position to effect the use of the language should genuinely enjoy the study of the English language, have no interest in furthering themselves, and truly be interested in the beliefs of others.
The author points to how liquid the English language is in its use, and also to the need for one official dialect. He also points out how most everyone has more than one dialect at their disposal, and the knowledge of when to use each. According to Wallace, Standard Written English is the default language used by those in power and those with a need for rhetoric.
Later in the article he brings up two opposing view points. One being Descriptivism, the other Prescriptivism. He picks apart each idea, and on a few occasions, responds directly to certain followers of the ideas in a negative manor.
However, he points to one person which he believes embodies his idea of the Democratic Spirit. He uses this man, by the name of Garner, to explain and exemplify his idea's usefulness.
The author, David Foster Wallace, submits his idea of the "Democratic Spirit" as the answer to the question.
He defines the Democratic Spirit in the following way: "A Democratic Spirit is one that combines rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus sedulous respect for the convictions of others."
With this, he is referring to his belief that anyone in the position to effect the use of the language should genuinely enjoy the study of the English language, have no interest in furthering themselves, and truly be interested in the beliefs of others.
The author points to how liquid the English language is in its use, and also to the need for one official dialect. He also points out how most everyone has more than one dialect at their disposal, and the knowledge of when to use each. According to Wallace, Standard Written English is the default language used by those in power and those with a need for rhetoric.
Later in the article he brings up two opposing view points. One being Descriptivism, the other Prescriptivism. He picks apart each idea, and on a few occasions, responds directly to certain followers of the ideas in a negative manor.
However, he points to one person which he believes embodies his idea of the Democratic Spirit. He uses this man, by the name of Garner, to explain and exemplify his idea's usefulness.
Initial Response to "Tense Present"
I can understand how in class it was discussed that David Foster Wallace is good at going in and out of different dialects. However, it seemed to me that within this piece his primary dialect is the same he would use when talking to friends. It was witty, sometimes sarcastic, and a little quirky for most of the article. Rarely, I sensed a tinge of self-given superiority, especially when he was referring to the opposing viewpoints on the methods that should be used when defining words and setting grammatical rules.
It seemed to me that a good bulk of the article addressed his ideal method and state of mind for use in setting those rules and definitions. He called the necessary factor a "Democratic Spirit." In his words , "A democratic spirit is one that combines rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus sedulous respect for the convictions of others."
In other words, those in the position to change and define our accepted English language (and write books that will do such things, such as dictionaries) should be someone without bias, with a great respect and love for the English language, and without a need or want to further themselves. (One such person he points out is a fellow by the name of Garner). This is a very logical statement, which I happen to agree with.
He also points out the flaws in the ideas of two groups which he calls "descriptivists" and "prescriptivists."
The way I read it:
Descriptivist: Work under the idea that expression is the most important thing about language. They also apparently back up letting the definitions and rules flow with the population's use of language. Descriptivism apparently took over the U.S. school system around the 1970's.
Prescrptivists: The kind of guys that Wallace refers to as SNOOTS. They are the rule setters. They are the ones with the final word on the language - to hell with the way commoners talk. They do, after all, have actual knowledge of the traditional language and its uses. Why let mis-use turn into the right thing?
I personally lean a little more towards descriptivist. But I can see why we would need prescriptivists. We need one good solid rule-set and dialect so we can effectively communicate to a wider population. Not everyone speaks valley girl, for example.
And as Wallace writes, our one solid rule-set and dialect is SWE, or Standard Written English. In the part where he quotes his speech to his class, he admits that it is upheld and used mainly by old white guys. And as racist as that might sound, it makes sense. Old white guys started this country and this dialect - this spin off of Old British English. And of course it has mutated over the years. It has to, because the way we use the language DOES change.
So in my opinion, the best way to handle all of this, all of the rules and definitions, and those in charge - the best way is to merge the two. Have a solid foundation and universal language with set rules. But acknowledge that uses will change within different dialects and that expression is indeed very important (as well as being understood). Of course, this goes along with the idea of "Democratic Spirit." To be democratic, you have to allow all possibilities. Hmm. Of course, you also end up voting and doing away with the other possibilities. Maybe we should all pick our favorite viewpoint and fight for its life?
It seemed to me that a good bulk of the article addressed his ideal method and state of mind for use in setting those rules and definitions. He called the necessary factor a "Democratic Spirit." In his words , "A democratic spirit is one that combines rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus sedulous respect for the convictions of others."
In other words, those in the position to change and define our accepted English language (and write books that will do such things, such as dictionaries) should be someone without bias, with a great respect and love for the English language, and without a need or want to further themselves. (One such person he points out is a fellow by the name of Garner). This is a very logical statement, which I happen to agree with.
He also points out the flaws in the ideas of two groups which he calls "descriptivists" and "prescriptivists."
The way I read it:
Descriptivist: Work under the idea that expression is the most important thing about language. They also apparently back up letting the definitions and rules flow with the population's use of language. Descriptivism apparently took over the U.S. school system around the 1970's.
Prescrptivists: The kind of guys that Wallace refers to as SNOOTS. They are the rule setters. They are the ones with the final word on the language - to hell with the way commoners talk. They do, after all, have actual knowledge of the traditional language and its uses. Why let mis-use turn into the right thing?
I personally lean a little more towards descriptivist. But I can see why we would need prescriptivists. We need one good solid rule-set and dialect so we can effectively communicate to a wider population. Not everyone speaks valley girl, for example.
And as Wallace writes, our one solid rule-set and dialect is SWE, or Standard Written English. In the part where he quotes his speech to his class, he admits that it is upheld and used mainly by old white guys. And as racist as that might sound, it makes sense. Old white guys started this country and this dialect - this spin off of Old British English. And of course it has mutated over the years. It has to, because the way we use the language DOES change.
So in my opinion, the best way to handle all of this, all of the rules and definitions, and those in charge - the best way is to merge the two. Have a solid foundation and universal language with set rules. But acknowledge that uses will change within different dialects and that expression is indeed very important (as well as being understood). Of course, this goes along with the idea of "Democratic Spirit." To be democratic, you have to allow all possibilities. Hmm. Of course, you also end up voting and doing away with the other possibilities. Maybe we should all pick our favorite viewpoint and fight for its life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
