The test is lamentable. On a side note, though, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who thinks that example A (alone on the list) is an actual improvement (and not just because, as noted earlier, it would satisfy the Chicago Manual)?
For me, assuming that the sentence's context lets readers know what building is under discussion, the phrase "which was a firetrap" is non-restrictive, and setting it off makes the sentence seem less rushed and better structured.
Or is that assumption about context the problem with this example?
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Nancy Tuten
Sent: Thu 4/3/2008 4:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Test of Essential Academic Skills
A business writing textbook I once used advocated using a period instead of
a question mark after what would normally be considered interrogative
sentences when the writer was not really offering the reader the opportunity
to say refuse the "request." An example would be "Will you send me the
report as soon as possible."
I thought at the time that it was an odd idea to teach writers. I suggested
to my students that I thought most people would think they had made an error
if they put a period after an interrogative sentence.
That same textbook said that the additional "s" after a singular possessive
noun ending in an "s" was optional "depending upon whether or not the writer
thought the additional syllable were awkward." Does that strike anyone else
as completely unhelpful and wholly subjective? The Gregg reference manual
says the same thing, but it also says over and over again that the
coordinating conjunctions are and, but, and or.
It's not a wonder folks are confused.
Nancy L. Tuten, PhD
Professor of English
Director of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Program
Columbia College
Columbia, South Carolina
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
803-786-3706
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Test of Essential Academic Skills
That *is* the kind of thing that makes you wish organizations like this one
could issue the equivalent of the medieval Church's Interdiction (can we
make the head of ATI kneel in the snow for hours? Ok, analogy taken too
far.).
At any rate, for what it's worth, I'd divide those examples into two
categories: the Needlessly Draconian, and the Hopelessly Wrong (with (B) and
(D) being hard to place):
ND: (A), (F), and (E). (A) makes sense if (and only if) you're
writing for publishing house whose style guide has already stipulated that
you must adhere to the Chicago-style recommendations for which and that. (F)
involves the kind of ambiguity that will only create comprehension problems
for people who will have trouble with reading the sentence in the first
place, or, for that matter, figuring out how wheels work. I actually do like
their suggested version, but there's a very large difference between an
"improvement" and a "correction." Although the original in (E) does sound
clumsy, if it occurred in a conversation about the cooking and laundry
duties, it could work.
HW: (C) and (G). I particularly like the idea of an imperative modal.
Perhaps, in an alternate universe, Churchill commanded the troops into
battle by shouting, "Shall you fight them on the beaches.." (G) wins the
Grammar Raspberry award, though for the way it requires a writer to discard
a viable option in favor of bad punctuation.
On those other two - This test is hardly alone in confusing "text syllables"
with "real syllables." It's sad, but unsurprising. The fact that someone
thought (D) was an example of excellent English writing serves as a kind of
summary comment on the test itself.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kischner
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: A Test of Essential Academic Skills
A psychologist friend of mine now living in Idaho is coaching nurses for a
test they must pass in English skills. The test used by the state of Idaho
for this purpose is called the "Test of Essential Academic Skills" and is
published by "ATI" which stands for Assessment Technologies Institute. In
her coaching, my friend is using the official Pre-Test Study Manual
published by ATI.
She has been so shocked by what she has found in the Test Study Manual that
she called to ask if I know of an official professional body that might
pronounce judgment on a company putting out shoddy, error-filled material.
I don't think ATEG is in the business of issuing such pronouncements, but I
wonder if people out there with what are now called "creds" in English
grammar and usage would be willing to express themselves on the materials.
Does anybody know to whom one might report ATI?
These examples are all from the ATI-published official Pre-Test Study Manual
for the Test of Essential Academic Skills (TEAS). "ATI" stands for the
Assessment Technologies Institute.
Example A: See Page 175, Item #19
Original: The building which was a firetrap was torn down.
Corrected: The building, which was a firetrap, was torn down.
Example B: See Page 175, Item #23
Original: We expect them moment
arily.
Corrected: We expect them moment-
arily. [This is supposed to be an example of correct
syllabication.]
Example C: See Page 175, Item #26
Original: May I interrupt you for a moment?
Corrected: May I interrupt you for a moment. [Reason given is that the
imperative requires a period rather than a question mark.]
Example D: See Page 178, Example #1:
A teacher's work (it has often been spoken), begins when the dismissal bell
rings. [This is offered as an example of good English usage. Note the
punctuation.]
Example E: See Page 184, Item #12
Original: On Saturdays, the cooking is done by me and the laundry is done
by my sister.
Corrected: Saturdays, I do the cooking and my sister does the laundry.
Example F: See Page 190, Item #9
Original: Mr. Thomas was fired from Washington High because so many
students failed the exam. This was unfortunate.
Corrected: It is unfortunate Mr. Thomas was fired from Washington High
because so many students failed the exam. [Reason given is that the
referent is ambiguous for "This" in the second sentence of the original. Is
the corrected version much better, though?]
Example G: See Page 191, Item #11
Original: The meeting lasted all day, and nothing was accomplished.
Corrected: The meeting lasted all day, however nothing was accomplished.
[Reason given is that in the first sentence two ideas of unequal importance
were joined by a coordinating conjunction. Can you believe the corrected
version?]
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
