(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.
Monday, September 8, 2008
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?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
A response to Mulroy
Within the first chapter of his book, entitled, "The War Against Grammar," David Mulroy strongely and openely gives his opinion on the teaching methods (and the lack thereof) for English Grammar in America.
He opens with showing the reader a response to an evaluations for his grammar course that a student gave. The student, having been asked if the purpose of the grammar course was fulfilled, replied, "There was no purpose." This is useful because it shows that:
1. The author, Mulroy, teaches Grammar himself and therefore is credible.
2. Current-day students don't know, or at least don't enjoy, much about grammar.
I can see why he'd respond like that. Actually, I can see several possible reasons why. When presented with something one doesn't understand, one tends to dislike and render useless the presented something. Also, when one knows of alternative means of doing something, other means serve no purpose other than doing things differently with the same outcome.
However, according to Mulroy, it isn't the same outcome. Students understand grammar enough to survive just by being surrounded by the verbal use of the language. But, when it comes to disecting, reconstructing, labeling, and learning about different aspects of English or other languages, they can't. Grammar is a vital and foundational aspect of language that leads to a direct understanding of more advanced aspects of the language. In other words, you can't teach anyone advanced ideas until they understand the basics correctly.
Mulroy also points out a continual lack of grammatical knowledge due to multiple factors. He brings up the NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) and how they have, for a time and to this day, backed up the idea that grammar is a lesser subject in regards to teaching English. A shift has been made to the emphasis of exression, rather than an emphasis of the particulars of the language. He draws a direct line of blame back to several outspoken individuals who spoke against the teaching of Grammar. People such as Peter Elbow who believed grammar distracted people from fully expressing because of the preoccupation with being correct with grammar. He also draws a line of blame back to the repeating cycle of clueless teachers and students. Teachers who weren't taught about grammar can't teach their students, who may end up teaching themseleves.
In my opinion, students really aren't taught about grammar as well as they should be today. I personally only remember being taught about the titles of certain types of words (like Noun and Verb). But really, I personally believe that expression is the most important thing about language. Grammar can enhance the ability to express, and it can also aid in the initial understanding of how to express, so grammar is a needed tool. Therefore, I think grammar should be initially learned and understood and then the shift to expression should be made.
He opens with showing the reader a response to an evaluations for his grammar course that a student gave. The student, having been asked if the purpose of the grammar course was fulfilled, replied, "There was no purpose." This is useful because it shows that:
1. The author, Mulroy, teaches Grammar himself and therefore is credible.
2. Current-day students don't know, or at least don't enjoy, much about grammar.
I can see why he'd respond like that. Actually, I can see several possible reasons why. When presented with something one doesn't understand, one tends to dislike and render useless the presented something. Also, when one knows of alternative means of doing something, other means serve no purpose other than doing things differently with the same outcome.
However, according to Mulroy, it isn't the same outcome. Students understand grammar enough to survive just by being surrounded by the verbal use of the language. But, when it comes to disecting, reconstructing, labeling, and learning about different aspects of English or other languages, they can't. Grammar is a vital and foundational aspect of language that leads to a direct understanding of more advanced aspects of the language. In other words, you can't teach anyone advanced ideas until they understand the basics correctly.
Mulroy also points out a continual lack of grammatical knowledge due to multiple factors. He brings up the NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) and how they have, for a time and to this day, backed up the idea that grammar is a lesser subject in regards to teaching English. A shift has been made to the emphasis of exression, rather than an emphasis of the particulars of the language. He draws a direct line of blame back to several outspoken individuals who spoke against the teaching of Grammar. People such as Peter Elbow who believed grammar distracted people from fully expressing because of the preoccupation with being correct with grammar. He also draws a line of blame back to the repeating cycle of clueless teachers and students. Teachers who weren't taught about grammar can't teach their students, who may end up teaching themseleves.
In my opinion, students really aren't taught about grammar as well as they should be today. I personally only remember being taught about the titles of certain types of words (like Noun and Verb). But really, I personally believe that expression is the most important thing about language. Grammar can enhance the ability to express, and it can also aid in the initial understanding of how to express, so grammar is a needed tool. Therefore, I think grammar should be initially learned and understood and then the shift to expression should be made.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Grammar, the beautiful non-abused step-child
I can't recall what a step-child is right now. I think maybe it is the child of a person who married into having said child under their parenting control. So really, the child is not their seed, and as a result, the child is not treated equally compared to the other (more useful) kids. That last paragraph should have either made the title make more sense or confuse you.
From here on out, Grammar is just a child, there is no step involved. The other kids, while not involved in our story, are the allegorical, and more openely taught, subjects of english teaching. The parents are current-day teachers. I'll leave the role filled by the neighbors for the reader to decypher.
According to most:
Grammar was once loved by her parents. They bragged about her non-stop every chance they got at the neighborhood parties. So much so that the neighbors got tired of the very mention of Grammar's name. But, Grammar's parents knew that it was best that the neighbors understood everything about Grammar, so they kept on talking about her.
According to few (and drawing from a certain someone who wrote a certain book for a certain class):
The constant nagging by the neighbors eventually got to Grammar's parents, because they were rather easily influenced individuals. A neighbor even went as far with the hate of Grammar as to start a crusade against Grammar, changing the views of parents nation wide. The Parents eventually broke off their marriage because of all the mental strain brought on by the neighbor's dislike for Grammar. Grammar lived life as an orphan after that, never being spoken of again by her parents.
What seems to be happening today (also drawing from a certain author of a certain book):
Eventually, Grammar's mother decided to take Grammar back in and give her a home. However, in the time between getting a divorce, and reclaiming Grammar, mother lived as a street-side prostitute who also worked as an auctioneer. This way of living lead to mother being very weak and without most of her voice. As a direct effect, mother could hardly speak of Grammar to the neighbors. Father ignored Grammar without remorse. The neighbors were happy, but upon entering as a student at the local college, they find that they have a hard time being taught English and writing.
...
In other words, teachers once taught grammar. Students and other people didn't enjoy it. At some point a movement occured leading to grammar no longer being taught (to the same degree). Now people are realizing what happens when grammar isn't taught.
What happens? I don't know, but it has something to do with prostitution and divorce.
From here on out, Grammar is just a child, there is no step involved. The other kids, while not involved in our story, are the allegorical, and more openely taught, subjects of english teaching. The parents are current-day teachers. I'll leave the role filled by the neighbors for the reader to decypher.
According to most:
Grammar was once loved by her parents. They bragged about her non-stop every chance they got at the neighborhood parties. So much so that the neighbors got tired of the very mention of Grammar's name. But, Grammar's parents knew that it was best that the neighbors understood everything about Grammar, so they kept on talking about her.
According to few (and drawing from a certain someone who wrote a certain book for a certain class):
The constant nagging by the neighbors eventually got to Grammar's parents, because they were rather easily influenced individuals. A neighbor even went as far with the hate of Grammar as to start a crusade against Grammar, changing the views of parents nation wide. The Parents eventually broke off their marriage because of all the mental strain brought on by the neighbor's dislike for Grammar. Grammar lived life as an orphan after that, never being spoken of again by her parents.
What seems to be happening today (also drawing from a certain author of a certain book):
Eventually, Grammar's mother decided to take Grammar back in and give her a home. However, in the time between getting a divorce, and reclaiming Grammar, mother lived as a street-side prostitute who also worked as an auctioneer. This way of living lead to mother being very weak and without most of her voice. As a direct effect, mother could hardly speak of Grammar to the neighbors. Father ignored Grammar without remorse. The neighbors were happy, but upon entering as a student at the local college, they find that they have a hard time being taught English and writing.
...
In other words, teachers once taught grammar. Students and other people didn't enjoy it. At some point a movement occured leading to grammar no longer being taught (to the same degree). Now people are realizing what happens when grammar isn't taught.
What happens? I don't know, but it has something to do with prostitution and divorce.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
In the beginning:
I had a horrible time. Well, maybe not a horrible time. I can at least say I had a draining time. What exactly am I speaking of? What exactly drained me to the extent of expressing it through text over the internet? The answer: my first few days of my third year of college.
Yes, I know, there are people starving in Africa. Of course someone out there is having a harder time than me; things like this happen. We all live and thrive off of the lessoning of others. We kill to eat and degrade to feel better. Pretty much, within humanity and most things involved, happiness or betterment can not be achieved without some sort of detriment to something or someone else.
Assuming the idea just brought up is truth, then where is all the happiness being sucked out of students going? Is the evil Space Pope syphoning it off? Is Count Absorbant Sponge Cake absorbing it all? The answer to those questions is no. There was no point to the last paragraph, but I hope it entertained you.
The happiness really doesn't go anywhere by the way, we just allow it to vanish. There are a select few things that really do drain happiness; death and family get-togethers for example. But for the most part, we are the ones in charge of the happiness/sadness ratio.
There really is no absolute reason for my current drained state. I can name off a few of candidates, but as already stated, it is up to me whether or not these things drain me. Here is the list of possible draining factors:
1. More involved classes. I'm an excellent note and test taker. I can even write. Anything else and I have to try for it.
2. A partially new job. I don't like not knowing things. At work, that is all I do.
3. Family strife. I don't like arguments. I cause them by living though.
But, in the end, I'm sure I'll be fine. I'll cope and chill with the Space Pope.
Yes, I know, there are people starving in Africa. Of course someone out there is having a harder time than me; things like this happen. We all live and thrive off of the lessoning of others. We kill to eat and degrade to feel better. Pretty much, within humanity and most things involved, happiness or betterment can not be achieved without some sort of detriment to something or someone else.
Assuming the idea just brought up is truth, then where is all the happiness being sucked out of students going? Is the evil Space Pope syphoning it off? Is Count Absorbant Sponge Cake absorbing it all? The answer to those questions is no. There was no point to the last paragraph, but I hope it entertained you.
The happiness really doesn't go anywhere by the way, we just allow it to vanish. There are a select few things that really do drain happiness; death and family get-togethers for example. But for the most part, we are the ones in charge of the happiness/sadness ratio.
There really is no absolute reason for my current drained state. I can name off a few of candidates, but as already stated, it is up to me whether or not these things drain me. Here is the list of possible draining factors:
1. More involved classes. I'm an excellent note and test taker. I can even write. Anything else and I have to try for it.
2. A partially new job. I don't like not knowing things. At work, that is all I do.
3. Family strife. I don't like arguments. I cause them by living though.
But, in the end, I'm sure I'll be fine. I'll cope and chill with the Space Pope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
