Johanna,
I had a response in the works when you posted this last missive. (I guess e-mails can be classified as missives??) You said a lot of what I wanted to say, but you, as usual, said it more eloquently and in more detail than I ever could.
Whether we like it or not, whether it is logical or illogical, whether it is fair or unfair, people make judgments about other people based on their language. Case in point: the following is an excerpt from an Amazon.com review of _Brain Based Learning_ by Eric Jenssen:
"It is an unfortunate tendency of people who review books to use any and every error in a book as an excuse for bashing the book, so I have to stop and make sure that I am not falling into that trap. Yet this book is truly awful: it has, literally, hundreds of grammatical and stylistic errors, and [sic!] there is probably not a page that doesn't have some type of error. Here's just one of the innumerable examples, which contains an error in punctuation and grammar: "The brain sits in a state of stress; and the learner's self-esteem, confidence, and peer acceptance is at stake," (p. 300). . . . All the errors--which, by the way, a high school freshman should know how to correct--make me wonder about the integrity of Jensen's knowledge of the science of the brain--how careful a scholar is he likely to be, when he shows so little familiarity with standards in scholarship?"
I am reading this book now, and the reviewer is right: Jensen violates all kinds of rules. (BTW, he uses a semi-colon + conjunction all over the place, but not for rhetorical effect. This is the rule as he (or his editor) has internalized it, apparently). Nevertheless, the text is very readable: the "errors" do not interfere with his communicative intent at all. Needless to say, though, he certainly doesn't build his credibility with these idiolectecal eccentricities.
It is fine to have lofty goals and to strive to implement them. However, it is, in my opinion, sheer folly to dismiss "errors" out of hand because they follow mandates. Many of these mandates are in place to facilitate the reading process. Grammar Gestapo dictates such as "Thou shalt not split infinitive" or "Thou shalt not end a sentence with a preposition" or "Thou shalt not use the passive" are suffering the fate they so richly deserve--they are dying out. However, writers are stigmatized when they fall too far astray of an accepted, if rather loosely defined norm. I want my students' ideas judged on their merit, without being negatively influenced by writing problems. Perhaps the day will come when people will stop making judgments about others based on language facility. Color me skeptical, however . . .
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Johanna Rubba
Sent: Mon 12/20/2004 2:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: From the Washington Times
Steven Pinker and others like him are being disingenuous by constantly
insisting that we don't have to teach people the grammar of their
language. They are overlooking the fact that the acquired language
competence of most people conflicts on numerous points with the
prescribed standard (even in the middle class, thanks to language change
in standard English). Therefore, if we want people to be fluent in the
prescribed standard, many have to learn it as second dialect. The degree
of difference between the native dialect and the standard is going to
vary with numerous individual characteristics like home environment,
region, social class, etc.
Then they are just dismissive of the standard, because they have the
"all dialects are equal" mindset. That's fine, since it is also
scientifically grounded. But linguists as a group just have not taken
very seriously the need to address these issues in terms the general
audience and language authorities will respond to positively. They too
often talk down to their audience.
A lot of commentary about Charrow's piece seems to buy her basic
assumption that explicit teaching of grammar is how you teach people
standard English, including punctuation. This is just not likely to be
the case. There's too much to teach, from grammar to punctuation to
idiomatic phraseology to rhetorical structure. The best way that people
acquire a language or dialect is by generous exposure in an environment
that motivates them to learn. This includes punctuation. Lately, I have
been trying to figure out what rules I follow in using or not using
commas around titles. I know I do it right, but I can't figure out the
rules. They're most likely written down somewhere, but I haven't found
time to look them up. I'm interested in them because it is an area of
almost universal error. When you have a phrase like
Toni Morrison's novel _Beloved_
you will want commas around the title sometimes and no commas other
times. In much writing I see, including some published material, the
writer has almost always made the wrong choice, usually by putting one
comma before the title and no comma after it, or putting two commas
where no commas are needed. People seem to have absorbed a rule "always
put a comma before the title of a work."
Now, if I can't state the rule I'm following, that means it is part of
my subconscious knowledge of written English. Where and how did I learn
it? Where and how did I learn all of the other punctuation rules that I
know how to follow, but have trouble explaining?
Maybe the rules are the same as those for restrictive/non-restrictive
modifiers. But then how did I learn that difference? Have teachers on
this list had success cultivating awareness of this difference? It often
seems to me that my students haven't internalized the _meaning_
difference, and therefore cannot use their knowledge of meaning to guide
their punctuation choices.
Conscious knowledge of grammar is always going to be an important tool
in discussing and understanding language--in raising language awareness
and aiding understanding of how grammar shapes meaning. I strongly
support an effective, informed grammar curriculum through most of the
school years (it would most likely be quite safe to wait until 3rd or
4th grade). But that curriculum is not what will make students fluent in
prescribed English. Experience with it in a sound motivational
environment will.
We are in a sad state right now with cultivating fluency in standard
English, especially the written standard. Very large numbers of students
and teachers do not have adequate internalized command of prescribed
English. The motivational situation is poor--elitism, anxiety and
prejudice against "bad English" are still being used as motivators. The
exposure situation is poor--students are reading and writing less;
intellecutal pursuits are "uncool"; parents will not accept low grades
for their children. Even college professors are very uneven in how much
they enforce standard English. A better grammar curriculum, even if it
is implemented through most years of schooling, is not going to fix
this. Also, there is no magic-bullet one-semester or one-year grammar
course that can bring either students or teachers completely up to
speed. We can certainly reshape their motivational mindset and give them
some basics, but they are going to have to commit themselves to hard
work to develop true fluency: they are going to have to read a lot more,
and continue their grammar education on their own.
Maybe I'm overly pessimistic about this; I would love to hear from
someone that they brought someone's written English up to par with a
one-term course or even a year-long course in grammar.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/
|
