Bruce,
The Pinker quote I gave comes from the delightful Language Mavens
chapter in Language Instinct. He does, in fact, make just the sorts of
distinctions you are pointing out, saying it's impossible for a taxi to
break the laws of physics, but easy to break the laws of Massachusetts
(with parallels to the rules that make language possible and the rules
that the prescriptivists proclaim.) It's an interesting chapter because
he debunks 9 myths of the language mavens and takes the mavens
themselves to task, but also blames people within his own profession for
leaving the niche (the public's desire for advice) empty so that these
"witch doctors" and "shamans" can self proclaim their truths. He calls
for a more scientifically based approach, and also an approach that has
more respect for the natural grammar of the language, and its owner,
"the human mind".
For many people, an "error" in grammar is simply a "bad habit" that
needs to be replaced by "a good habit", but the linguist tends to see
all these habits as rule driven. In other words, we use "hopefully" as a
sentence modifier just as we do "honestly," and the only reason to avoid
this is to avoid offending the purists who have arbitrarily picked this
out as something to avoid. (As Pinker points out, this leaves certain
ideas "unexpressible.") No wonder people have a distaste for grammar.
The only difference between the good habits and the bad habits is which
one is arbitrarily deemed as acceptable, and jumping through these hoops
seems to take us away from the real work of writing..
What would happen if we simply did away with these arbitrary rules
and focused on the production of meaningful text? What does a student
need to know in order to put his or her own natural language to work in
highly productive ways? If we think of grammar as more than just a
neutral form for the conveyance of meaning, but a way to build
meaningful structures (and I would include interesting, clear, moving,
convincing, and so on, all those purposes that drive us to read and to
write), then what do we need to know in order to accomplish these goals,
or, more accurately, to move closer to accomplishing those goals since
this kind of change is not mere "correction", but a true "revision" of
text?
Pinker doesn't advocate abandoning all standards, but clearly calls
for a more "scientific" and "thoughtful" approach. He also acknowledges
that writing has to perform work that spoken language was simply not
designed to do. He also says that it's not sexy to say that students
don't revise enough; it doesn't get the headlines you can get from
proclaiming the decay of the language. In process approaches to
composition, grammar has been relegated to the margins primarily because
it is thought to get in the way of the production of meaningful texts.
That is at least in part because the focus has been on prescriptive
rules, not on the rules that make all meaning possible. Grammar can and
should be an inherent part of revision, not just correction, just as it
can and should be an important tool in the interpretation of text. What
something means and how it means are inherently entwined. Perhaps the
worst impact of arbitrary prescriptivism is that it distracts us from
the real possibilities of grammar. We argue for or against it instead
of getting on with far more productive work. (Choosing the passive, for
example, because we want to keep the receiver of the action in focus,
not because it's correct or incorrect in some sort of arbitrary way.)
Perhaps this gives us a third type of "rule", those integral to
rhetorical practice.
Craig
Bruce Despain wrote:
> Johanna,
>
> I think that the linguists like Steven Pinker are using the word
> "grammar" as a technical term for the rules as structures that guide
> the mind in making language. Certainly a teacher must think of
> "grammar" as those rules that are internalized in making communication
> possible between people using the same language. You will remember
> that the TG agenda is to characterize the commonalities of all human
> languages as variations in the repertoire of possible rules. For the
> linguist this may be quite different from adapting to the particular
> habits and conventions of a certain speech community. In the end we
> may have a large continuum of possible meanings for "grammar."
>
> Bruce
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 12/20/2004 12:33:03 PM >>>
> 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 <http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/%7Ejrubba>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 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/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message may contain confidential information, and is
> intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
> is addressed.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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/