Herb, Kathryn,
You guys do a nice job of arguing for semi reluctant
adherence/resignation to the current status quo. I enjoy tilting at
windmills, so I'll keep at it a bit longer.
"Gatekeeper" has a different ring to me than it would to most people
because I work with non-traditional students and know the way it has
been used in the past. Shaughnessy calls it the first stage in her
taxonomy of maturation for developmental teachers. (She calls it
"Guarding the Tower"). A teacher decides he/she wants to protect the
academy from the barbarian hordes (in her case, open admissions
students) who would degrade it. Students are tested at entry and put
into "remedial" classes largely on the basis of surface error. They are
then grilled and drilled in the hopes of getting them to write correct
sentences, after which they will be taught how to write correct
paragraphs, correct short themes, and so on, with a terrible success
rate that the teacher chalks up to innate lack of ability. At any rate,
the academy is protected from the perceived assault on standards. A
much better approach is to simply assume their ability, take their
writing seriously, and watch the natural changes that occur as they
learn to shape their writing in meaningful and effective ways. Instead
of saying we will take them seriously when their language changes, we
can take them seriously from the start and achieve much more rapid
change as a result. This partly requires a serious listening to life
stories rather different from our own and recognizing enormously
valuable insights that come from differing perspectives.
Of course, these students suffer more than others from our failure to
teach seriously about language. They come to us with very little
metalanguage to work with. Their language has been "corrected", but not
explained.
If we resign ourselves to the inevitability that our student writers
will be held to dysfunctional standards, we are abdicating our
responsibility, which is to use our expertise wisely. I'm surprised at
the number of studies of "error" (such as the Connors-Lunsford) that
note that certain dialect "errors" are the most heavily stigmatized
without reaching the conclusion that we are prey to heavily racist
practices that spill over into language. All the burden seems to be
placed on the students to change to fit these kinds of reprehensible
prejudices. It certainly does make sense to prepare students to face an
unfriendly world, but we can tell the truth about it much more than we do.
Two treatments of this that I find very sensible are in Ed
Schuster's Breaking the Rules... and "The Language Maven" chapter in
Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct. Both talk about what Schuster
calls "mythrules" and their tendency to perpetuate themselves precisely
because we expect them to continue. "Most", according to Pinker, "make
no sense at any level... The rules conform neither to logic nor to
tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into
fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which
certain thoughts are not expressible at all" (385). Pinker criticizes
these self-proclaimed experts for two principal "blind spots" : "One is
a gross underestimation of the linguistic wherewithal of the common
person....The other...is their complete ignorance of the modern science
of language" (412-13).
Some of the studies of grammar instruction seem to show that they
impede the teaching of writing, and that may very well be best
understood in relation to the above. In order to write well, you have to
have some trust that the language you have available is up to the task.
Prescriptivists tend to make people feel inadequate. Tell them you are
a grammarian, and many people will become instantly uncomfortable, tell
you their grammar is terrible, and that they'll have to watch what they
say. In other words, they are likely to shut up. The other way that it
impedes is that it is an arbitrary obstacle. Instead of spending time
focused on whether the writing accomplishes more important goals, we get
distracted into attending to surface features. The writing gets
corrected rather than revised. This other grammar thing (prescriptive)
takes over. There are solid studies that show this.
Of course, the more knowledgeable ALL of us are about grammar, the
less likely it is that this sort of thing will happen. This should
include a healthy respect for the linguistic sophistication of the
everyday language user and a healthy distrust of the self-proclaimed
experts. It should also include a serious, sustained look at how meaning
happens within the grammar of the language. Sentences are very flexible
in the information they contain and in the way that information is
organized. In an effective text, they work in harmony with other
sentences and in harmony with a writer's evolving purposes. We can
develop an understanding of grammar that attends to this and helps us
accomplish the real work of writing.
Instead of testing how people behave, we should test what they KNOW.
You can certainly make a case that it's not TEACHING of grammar, but
IGNORANCE about grammar that does the most harm.
I didn't respond directly to Gretchen's thoughtful post, so I'll add
a point here. We need to do something to empower teachers like her, who
want to do what's sensible but feel caught up within a dysfunctional
system. I know what it's like to feel that every error a student makes
for another teacher reflects back on the writing teacher who let them
through the gate. Even when our focus is mostly on the student (as it
seems to be for Gretchen) we can feel that our hands are tied, that we
need to get them ready to jump through hoops we never would have
invented on our own. We need to speak up at the highest levels if we
hope to free up dedicated teachers and influence thoughtful change.
Craig
Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
>Kathryn and Craig,
>
>What we seem to be talking about here is Formal Standard Written English, a register that college students are required to master and that high school students intending to go to college need to be well on the way towards mastering. It is the great gate-keeper in American society. My college students see this immediately when I ask them to think back to high school classmates who didn't succeed at English and where they were now. We talk about this, and it's clear to all that there are notable exceptions to the rule, but that overwhelmingly success at FSWE is a prerequisite to other socio-economic success.
>
>The problem with this is that FSWE is constructed in different ways by different people, be they teachers, editors, employers, school board members, or parents. Not everyone's FSWE is the same but frequently each person believes firmly that his or her FSWE is correct and widely accepted. We can't teach to all of the which/that, stranded preposition, passive voice, ... preferences, so we have to make sure our students know that these preferences exist and that they may have to be sensitive to them.
>
>And, by the way, they aren't all old. As we've discussed before, the ban on possessive antecedents, which it the news a few years ago, shows up for the first time in the 1940s and than spreads to nearly all the standard grammar books, even though even the writers who tout it violate it often in the same work. Sentence-initially "hopefully" isn't much older. These are more matters of fashion and of societal myth as matters of grammar.
>
>Herb
>
>
>Hey, Craig,
>
>Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think I'll try pasting in some of
>your points and replying to them individually--
>
>Craig: " . . . the function of case has been
>shifting toward the pragmatic. Is that a weakening of the language,
>something we should fight against? . . . At any rate, we
>might be taking arms against the sea if we oppose it."
>
>Kathryn: I 100% agree with you about the folly of fighting language
>change--both because it would be a lost cause and because often language
>changes specifically to meet users' changing communicative needs. But as
>long as many language users (especially cultural gatekeepers) still
>value the "old" conventions and follow them, it's helpful to know what
>those old conventions are, how to follow them, and when it is wise to do
>so (or when the conventions will improve clarity, communication,
>richness, etc.). That's not a matter of fighting change; it's a matter
>of understanding/navigating it.
>
>
>Craig: "I have a great deal of difficulty with the notion of "standard
>English." We tend to talk about it as if it were set in stone and was
>actually existing somewhere to be studied and emulated."
>
>Kathryn: I don't know anyone who is savvy about language who thinks that
>standard English is static. One can study and emulate a set of
>conventions without having to have them set in stone. After all, one can
>study art or emulate the work of particular artists even as what our
>culture regards as valuable art changes constantly.
> But again, I didn't raise the issue of "standard English" as a
>call to pedantic arms (a call to red pens?) but to wonder whether
>employing a standard or working to improve student writing doesn't
>necessarily *mean* to some degree being a prescriptivist and/or a
>proponent of standard English. It doesn't mean that you employ every
>prescription of Fowler's or that you fall into lockstep with the,
>whatever, 2-5% of conventions of standard English that strike you as
>arbitrary and undemocratic. But any time we accept that writing can be
>improved or that some usages are "better" (clearer, more
>"natural"-sounding, whatever) than others, we venture out of the bounds
>of pure descriptivism, no?
>
>
>Craig: "But that's a far cry from saying that a dialect is inherently
>incorrect."
>
>Kathryn: I agree that it doesn't make sense to talk about dialects or
>registers being "inherently" correct (or "inherently" aesthetically
>pleasing or appropriate). Language use is clearly contextual.
>
>
>"I suspect we get to the same place from opposite directions, but I
>also think the direction you come from has enormous repercussions.
>Craig"
>
>Likewise.
>Best to you,
>Kathryn
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:08 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: using "before"
>
>Kathryn,
>
> I think this mostly comes down to differences in our views of
>language.
> Yours may be more mainstream, but mine is more mainstream within the
>writing (composition) community, which might explain why there's such a
>gap between grammar and writing.
> I like the idea that anxiety is functional. But when I'm feeling
>anxiety in relation to my writing, it's not that it needs "correcting",
>but that it isn't accomplishing what I want it to. (Not clear,
>thoughtful, interesting, useful, convincing, whatever the purpose might
>be.) Believe it or not, I work hard to make my writing seem like
>something a person might actually say.
> If Herb is right (he has me convinced) the function of case has been
>shifting toward the pragmatic. Is that a weakening of the language,
>something we should fight against? I'm more apt to use it for
>rhetorical effect to the extent that i understand it. At any rate, we
>might be taking arms against the sea if we oppose it. I may not like
>the law of gravity, but I have to live in a gravity world.
> A traditional view of grammar is that it's the set of constraints
>that
>govern what is considered acceptable within more formal discourse.
>Most writing teachers, and I'm certainly one, feel we need to hold that
>in abeyance while writing answers far more important concerns. There's
>a pretty good literature out there that shows the compulsion to
>"correct' writing (rather than revise) is characteristic of
>inexperienced and ineffective writers. To the extent that we spend
>considerable time getting students ready to meet arbitrary and
>dysfunctional standards, we have distorted the whole notion of writing.
> As you know, though, I'm all in favor of a far deeper and wider
>understanding of language. Avoiding superficial error seems a
>distraction from a far richer, far more interesting subject, the
>language itself and how it works and operates.
> From a functional perspective, meaning happens in and through the
>grammar. These are rhetorical choices, not merely formal ones.
> I help people with writing for "formal" registers all the time.
>Most
>are very happy that I demand much more than correctness. >
> I have a great deal of difficulty with the notion of "standard
>English." We tend to talk about it as if it were set in stone and was
>actually existing somewhere to be studied and emulated. It's an
>abstract concept. Even if we decide it is evidenced by the work of the
>"best writers", who are we to include in that category?
> I'm certainly not in favor of losing your reader by using terms or
>constructs they aren't familiar with. But that's a far cry from saying
>that a dialect is inherently incorrect. You write with your audience in
>mind, and that may mean recognizing that their lives have been more
>privileged than your own.
> I suspect we get to the same place from opposite directions, but I
>also think the direction you come from has enormous repercussions.
>
>Craig
>
>
>
>You say, "These prescriptions go on making people distrust their own
>
>
>>language. . . . Rather than improving writing, I think they have the
>>effect of shutting it down."
>>
>>
>>
>>I think that people are most often anxious when they feel they are
>>inexpert. Sometimes they react to that anxiety by trying to become
>>
>>
>more
>
>
>>expert, and sometimes they react by shutting down. (I agree that a
>>school grammar or teacher that seeks to shame a student or that
>>
>>
>refuses
>
>
>>to acknowledge linguistic diversity can heighten this anxiety-bad
>>teachers are bad for students, period.) Ultimately, though, students
>>will succeed when they learn to take responsibility for how they react
>>to that anxiety, and educators will succeed when they encourage
>>
>>
>students
>
>
>>to take the former route by showing them how to become more expert and
>>what the rewards will be if they do.
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't think it lessens anxiety to dismiss case rules as outmoded and
>>irrelevant. Students will, rightly, have the uneasy feeling that other
>>people are privy to information that they don't have. It may, though,
>>lessen their anxiety if they can understand case rules and figure out
>>when or if they need to bother to apply them. It will probably lessen
>>their anxiety even more if they understand that in American English
>>
>>
>case
>
>
>>usage has shifted a great deal and that the shift has a lot to do with
>>the difference they hear between formal and informal registers.
>>
>>
>>
>>You say, "We don't have to be prescriptivists to have . . . high
>>standards." This raises an interesting point. (I'm assuming you mean
>>high standards for language use.) From a fully descriptive position,
>>what would it mean to hold a student to a high standard? Doesn't a
>>
>>
>100%
>
>
>>non-prescriptive position mean nobody's language is "nonstandard"? If
>>
>>
>no
>
>
>>one's language is nonstandard, then what does it mean to reach the
>>standard? I *think* what you mean is "We don't have to be pedants to
>>have . . . high standards"--? And amen to that.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Kathryn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>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/