One of the problems with the claim of declining standards is that the
notion of literacy has changed.  In an earlier post, I wrote:

> I make many typos in writing these responses on-line and constantly
>worry whether those errors will be so egregious that my colleagues will
>ignore my ideas.  I want to know why this worry is not an inevitable
>consequence of engaging in public discourse, especially about the nature
>of English grammar.

Judy Diamondstone replied

> Bob, if you read Shirley Heath's articles on literacy in the early years of
> this nation, you will learn why this worry is not an inevitable
> consequence of engaging in public discourse

> In the early years of the nation, people tended to write anonymously and
> their writing was non-standardized. Everyone outside of the cities seemed to
> be literate, politically active, reading broadsides, and reading and writing
> for practical needs, like how to make the plow wider or whatever. Today, you
> have to admit, there is very little participation of a broad public in
> political affairs -- maybe language standardization has something to do with
> the threat to democracy some perceive in our country today.

I do not know what Shirley Brice Heath has written on this and I know
nothing about the nature of literacy at the time of the American
Revolution.  I do know of some numbers at the time of the Civil War and
what "everyone outside of cities" might mean.  McPherson in Battle Cry
of Freedom (pages 19-21) notes that before 1860 "95% of the adults in
New England could read and write.  3/4s of the children from 5 to 19
were enrolled in schools for an average of six months of the year.  The
rest of the North was not far behind.   In the South, 80% of the white
population was literate and 1/3 rd of the white children were enrolled
in school for an average of three months a year.  Of course, slaves did
not attend school and only about 10% could read and write.  Even
counting slaves nearly 4/5ths of the US population was literate in the
1850s compared with 2/3s in Britain and northwest Europe and 1/4 in
southern and eastern Europe."

I do not know how political activism is measured.  Remember that until
1919 the vote in the US was granted to only half the adult population.
Williams in Rich Man's War: Class, Caste and Confederate Defeat in the
Lower Chattahochie notes that in the referendum held on secession in
Georgia in January, 1861 only 50 percent of the eligible voters voted on
whether they wanted Georgia to leave the Union or not (p 51).

To move to a more modern example about linguistic (in)security, I
recommend a section on slate.com called Bushism of the Week which
reports on some of the more unintelligible utterances of the leading
candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party.  Here are the two
that are now on the site:

"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls
and principles, come and join this campaign."
 --Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16

"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system
 that simply suckles kids through?"

 --explaining the need for educational
    accountability in Beaufort, S.C., Feb. 16

In writing about the S.C. debate, Jacob Weisberg on slate notes the
following:

Bushism of the night: "We ought to make the pie higher."
    Bush was trying to explain how his tax cuts would promote economic
growth. He inadvertently suggested that supply-side economics is pie in
the sky.


These are nice examples to talk about the importance of word choice and
order of constituencies in a string.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University









>
> Judy
>
> >I appreciate the description of text grammar.  I find the following
> >description interesting, especially the use of the word "tendencies."
> >
> >>  These two functions are fulfilled by grammatical choices,
> >> although the patterns are tendencies rather than rigid rules.
> >
> >I wonder how many students want to be told about tendencies.  Exactly,
> >what is the percentage of a tendency?  How much deviation must there be
> >from a tendency for a text to be "ungrammatical"?
> >
> >The Redford example is not unexpected.  What is the point of instruction
> >based on the following observation?
> >>
> >> My analysis of a text
> >> about Robert Redford, for instance, finds Redford in subject position
> >> 500 times, with no other subtopics or non-topics reaching anywhere near
> >> that number.
> >
> >Would a teacher write:
> >
> >This text clearly has problems because the person the text is about is
> >not in the subject position enough times.  In this text, it is X times
> >and for such a text it is usually/often/frequently/always (I don't know
> >the correct frequency adverb here) Y times.
> >
> >When I encounter such texts, I ask the student how this information is
> >related to the claim being made in the text.  I don't have to count how
> >many times the topic of the text is in the grammatical subject position.
> >
> >> Of course, this makes the most sense if one views grammar instruction as
> >> a process of educating students about their 'writing tool-box'. It makes
> >> less sense within a 'grammar as fix-it' philosophy, in which conforming
> >> to standard grammar is the main concern. On the other hand, functional
> >> grammar can be very helpful for students who have trouble writing
> >> coherent texts, and have to fix this trouble.
> >
> >One of the texts that every writing teacher, especially a basic writing
> >teacher, should read is Mina Shaughnessey's Error and Expectations.
> >Shaughnessey  places  the problem of basic writing with movement from
> >abstract to concrete statements.
> >
> >"[BW] papers tend to contain either cases or generalizations but not
> >both.  If anything, students seem to have more difficulty moving from
> >abstract statements down to more concrete levels than they do moving up
> >the ladder of abstraction." (p. 240-1)
> >
> >There are issues of grammar in this "movement," but grammar instruction
> >alone, "a tool-box approach" is not issue.  And, clearly, this is not an
> >issue of controlling the standard.  It has more to do with expectations
> >of the audience about how claims are presented and what appropriate
> >kinds of generalization and support for such generalizations are.
> >
> >Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
> >
>
> Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
> Graduate School of Education
> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
> 10 Seminary Place
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183