I think it may be important to separate two different kinds of "grammar
error" for purposes of this discussion. The first is the traditional
array of problems with subject/verb agreement, intransitive vs.
transitive verb use, parallel structure, etc. The second is what many
handbooks might classify as "diction problems": homonym errors, use of
the wrong preposition with a verb, confusing "every day" with
"everyday," or just what I've started calling "sideways writing," as
when a student wanting to say something like, "Lincoln emancipated the
slaves" instead writes, "Lincoln put freedom onto the slaves."

I suspect -- without objective evidence, unfortunately -- that the
frequency of the first type of error, by whatever definitions of
standard grammar are in force at any given time, has held roughly steady
for the past two or three hundred years (it doesn't make much sense to
talk about mistakes prior to a period in which the majority of people
didn't think about language in ways heavily affected by notions of
standardization). Those of us who teach college may see more of it, but
only as a function of (a) a greater percentage of students going on to
college, and (b) this increase in students entailing availability of
college to more speakers of nonstandard dialects, who previously were
often denied access to it. Professors who might never before have seen
"might could" or "fixing to" in print now have the opportunity to do so.
I would guess that if we sampled ninth-grade writing across K-12 systems
every ten years for the past hundred years or so, we'd see much less
change.

I confess, however, that it is my (again, subjective) impression that
I'm seeing a lot more of the *second* kind of problem. I had at least
seven students this semester regularly confuse "sole" with "soul," with
some rather amusing consequences. From a linguistic perspective, that
kind of confusion is simply incidental to our spelling system's baroque
oddity -- it's just evidence that students are not only hooked on
phonics, but that they have trouble breaking the cycle of addiction.
It's a very *noticeable* kind of mistake, though, and can easily lead to
very negative judgments about the writer -- and unfair though those may
be, the writer *will* bear the brunt of them. It's this kind of problem
that I think is related to a decrease in reading and the lack of school
experiences that encourage students to think actively about how they're
using their language.  

Whether any of this was considered, or would be considered, relevant by
Charrow I have no idea; she may prefer to live in a far simpler world.
From her article, I can't help but suspect that her goal was primarily
to establish her political position for purposes of her "employment with
the federal government." But then, I'm cynical. 

Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

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/