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/