Dear Scott Woods, Bill Spruiell, Craig Hancock, Brad Johnson, and Bob  
Yates,
	I appreciate the energy and intelligence you have brought discussing  
my letter.  One other friend replied, James D. Williams, author of  
The Teacher's Grammar Book.  He rightly took issue with my claim that  
grammar give us frames, "I don't believe that grammar provides frames  
through which we view our lives but rather the way we view our lives  
provides us with different grammars with which we can express those  
views."  I would like to reflect on what you all have said.  To Bill,  
I was not making the claim that Obama used language well (though I  
believe he does).  To Brad, if ghostwriters are constructing his  
speeches, I am sure he reviews them.  He seems to know how to engage  
his audience, but that is not my point.  If you watch how he  
addresses people in spontaneous moments, such as when he was sitting  
down with Clinton and Edwards after having to defend himself against  
Bill and Hillary's mischaracterizations of his remarks and positions,  
he had the grace of a Johnny Carson allowing them to deliver their  
spiels as Johnny would allow comedians to do their bit.  This is  
being in the moment.  It is not what he expresses but how he expresses.
	More time should be spent replying to Scott,  Bob Yates did this, in  
part, by raising the question of how many people disagree "violently  
on nearly every issue."  It seems they do not (though some do, and,  
surely, we would not expect them to vote for someone they oppose).   
More to the point, Scott, are you writing about others or about  
yourself when you say, "[I]t seems at best counterintuitive to vote  
for a candidate with whom one disagrees violently on nearly every  
issue in the hope that somehow having a place at the table will make  
up for not having the kinds of policies one desires."  I acknowledge  
that it seems counterintuitive to do this, but this seems better than  
relying on our old ways of doing things.  Consider, in deciding to  
disempower minorities and keep an underclass which could be paid low  
wages and could be blamed for problems arising from their discontent,  
those who chose to enrich themselves to the detriment of others  
failed to develop these people as a market for their goods.  They  
failed to develop them as coparticipants in a culture where their  
inclusion would benefit the whole.  If our intuition is based on a  
brain developed through evolution where warriors were rewarded for  
defeating their enemies, we might want to question the value of this  
intuition when it dominates our modern age.  I am suggesting that an  
age where we can google and travel extensively is one in which  
inclusion has more pluses than exclusion.  Hoarding what we have so  
that it outweighs what others possess reaps little reward in heaven,  
nor does it help us much on earth.  Given that we can view our lives  
as the eternal present enlivened by hope or view them as a narrative  
that possibly driven by fear, we have a choice.  I think, Scott, if I  
were to honor what I like best in your response, I would accept the  
idea that we should operate in a dialetic where both views were  
held.  That is, at least, a world in which we might achieve more  
balance.
	Now, to the point that I wanted to make and, obviously, did not make  
well enough to be heard.  I find it exciting that the differences  
between candidates can be parsed out by grammarians.  In the current  
debate, our voices should be heard.  We have the language and the  
meta-language to frame the current debate so that others can see  
differences that might be clear to us but obscure to others.  As we  
move into territory where people's inclinations make certain options  
seem counterintuitive because we have never done things in this way  
before, we will need to use the power of our language and the tools  
of grammar to help people participate in the negotiation of their  
future.  If we are all sitting at the table, we will need a new way  
to address each other.  I believe the tools the members of this group  
possess will be invaluable.  I believe our time is now.
		Best regards to all,
		Gregg

On Feb 12, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

> Bill,
>     Nicely said. I'd just like to add, to bring us back to Gregg's  
> point,
> that part of what we are assessing is how well a candidate can LISTEN,
> how well he/she can look past entrenched positions that have proven
> polarizing in the past and offer alternatives that break those
> deadlocks.
>    It would be interesting to apply that to the issue of public  
> grammar,
> which is deeply polarized, in deep need of new paradigms.
>
> Craig
>
>
> I'm going to attempt to focus on general rhetoric rather than any
>> specific candidate, past or present, if only because the thread is  
>> one
>> with a strong potential for wandering off into non-list-relevant
>> territory. We're partly involved in trying to decide whether  
>> someone's
>> ability to speak articulately and (for want of a better term)  
>> cleverly
>> is an automatic plus - whether it implies a heightened ability to  
>> govern
>> well. As English-teachers, we're not disinterested parties; it's  
>> hard to
>> feel convincing when you're explaining to students how important  
>> it is
>> to craft language articulately and carefully and at the same time you
>> (and they) know that someone who hasn't been doing either is  
>> president.
>> We all like to think our field is the most important thing ever, and
>> enforced humility is never fun. However, I think most of us would  
>> agree
>> with the answers I've dubbed in for the following two questions:
>>
>>
>>
>> (1) Is it possible for a brilliant speaker to be lousy at governing?
>> Yes.
>>
>> (2) Is it possible for a bad speaker to be good at governing? Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> And now we get to the "However" part. When dealing with candidates  
>> (for
>> any office, or any job), we're guessing what they might do; the  
>> truth of
>> the matter is only assessable after that person's term. So, the  
>> issue is
>> one of evidence. If someone writes a speech that uses language
>> articulately and insightfully (and I think it's very important to
>> distinguish this from giving that speech; I don't want to find out I
>> voted for someone's ghostwriter), I can gather that the candidate is
>> capable of being articulate, and of thinking carefully. I don't know
>> whether or not the candidate will continue to exercise those  
>> abilities;
>> I just know that s/he can do so. I also don't know whether the  
>> candidate
>> can make good decisions - but being able to think carefully and
>> communicate well is one of the requirements of high office. A  
>> candidate
>> who gives an inarticulate and platitude-ridden speech, conversely,  
>> has
>> not demonstrated that s/he is incapable of articulate language use  
>> and
>> careful thought - instead, we're left with a simple absence of data
>> (unless it's a very important speech, in which case one has to  
>> question
>> the candidate's judgment if not his/her locution).
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus, I can view "articulateness" as a plus for a candidate - but  
>> I have
>> to regard arguments such as, "X's position on Y must be wrong because
>> s/he can't make a simple sentence work" as being an ad hominem  
>> attack.
>> All things being equal, though (as if they ever are), given a choice
>> between a candidate whose articulateness has demonstrated at least  
>> one
>> or two positive qualities, and a candidate whose inarticulateness has
>> not given me such evidence, I think it's rational to vote for the
>> former. Unfortunately, that logic assumes that part of the
>> otherwise-equal status of the candidates is their positions on
>> substantive issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Spruiell
>>
>> Dept. of English
>> Central Michigan University
>>
>>
>>
>> [opinions expressed herein are not to be taken as indicative of the
>> policy of my institution or department]
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:36 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Grammar defines the candidates.
>>
>>
>>
>> This seems to be a "rhetoric versus reality" problem. Obama does  
>> seem to
>> be a clear, articulate, hopeful, inclusive, forward oriented  
>> person and
>> candidate.  He does seem to want to be perceived as the kind of  
>> person
>> who includes everyone in the discussion, the process of crafting  
>> policy.
>> Yet his history as a legislator and his pronouncement about specific
>> policy choices alienate him from many voters.  It is unclear to me  
>> why
>> the grammar of hope with its infinite possibilities, which he  
>> seems to
>> do well, is preferable to the grammar of fear with its much more
>> restricted set of possibilities.  It may be that our grammar ought to
>> match our reality, and it may be that our possibilities are not
>> infinite, that our choices do have consequences over which we have no
>> control, and that we do have much to fear in this world from those  
>> who
>> have bad ideas, even if their motives are good.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not see how a person such as Obama, whose policy positions are
>> opposed by so many, can possibly unite the country.  I do not even  
>> know
>> what it means to unite the country or if that is possible or even
>> desirable.  There are deep divisions in philosophy and policy in our
>> nation, and these will not go away.  Being invited to the table,  
>> being
>> consulted, being asked, while certainly desirable, are not  
>> substitutes
>> for having one's ideas put into effect.  Personally, I vote for
>> political leaders with whom I agree on the key issues that matter the
>> most to me.  Historically, presidential candidates who look to the
>> future are more successful than those who look to the past--Obama has
>> learned this lesson--but it seems at best counterintuitive to vote  
>> for a
>> candidate with whom one disagrees violently on nearly every issue  
>> in the
>> hope that somehow having a place at the table will make up for not
>> having the kinds of policies one desires.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott Woods
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> 	Dear Assembly Members,
>>
>> 	I have sent the following letter in response to an L.A. TIMES
>> editorial.  If language shapes our thinking, grammar shapes the
>> framework in which our thinking takes place.  We are at a crossroads
>> where narrative meets process, where past, present, and future  
>> meet the
>> eternal present, surrounded by infinite possibilities.  I send  
>> this to
>> you in hopes that it resonates with your thinking.
>>
>> 	I look forward to reading your responses.
>>
>> 	Sincerely,
>>
>> 	Gregg Heacock
>>
>>
>>
>> 	Dear Editor,
>>
>> 	      Jonah Goldberg in "Obama's rhetoric, American realities"
>> is right to raise the issue of whether a diverse community with a
>> history of individual grievances could come to the same table to plan
>> together for their common future.  Quoting Robert Putnam, author of
>> "Bowling Alone," he says, "In the presence of diversity, we hunker
>> down," and he interprets this lack of "social trust" as possibly  
>> being a
>> form of "realism."  As a teacher of English, I respect our realistic
>> inclination to challenge other people's thinking by saying, "Yes,  
>> but .
>> . . ," "So what!," and "Oh, yeah?  What makes you think so?  How  
>> do you
>> know?"  These challenges, based on logical conditions of sufficient
>> grounds, relevance, and acceptability, are filters that protect us  
>> from
>> intellectual pollution.  The question is whether our filtration  
>> system
>> gets so clogged with lack of basic trust that it never lets any new
>> information get through.  Do our histories and personal grievances  
>> get
>> in the way of being realistic?  What makes Obama such an agent of  
>> change
>> is that he has found a way to move us beyond ourselves.
>>
>> 	      Grammar provides us with two frames through which we view
>> our lives.  Scientific, or process, paragraphs are written in the
>> eternal present:  We do this, then do that to bring about a desired
>> result.  Historic, or narrative, paragraphs are written in the past
>> tense, exploring how the past affects the present and could repeat
>> itself in the future.  Most of us a pleased to imagine ourselves  
>> in the
>> eternal present for we are never lost in the here and now and the
>> possibilities before us are infinite.  Our decisions, therefore, are
>> guided by hope.  When we think of the harm we have suffered in the  
>> past
>> and contemplate how we might continue to be harmed in the future, our
>> decisions in the present are guided by fear.
>>
>> 	      Because Obama is a pluralist, honoring all groups and all
>> proposals and setting criteria for discerning which ideas are  
>> presently
>> acceptable, he is about process, not about grievance.  People who  
>> come
>> to the table may carry resentments, but, relevant though they may  
>> be to
>> evaluating the worth of a plan, they are subsumed by the criteria  
>> agreed
>> upon by all.  Obama has already shown us how this process works.   
>> In the
>> pre-Nevada caucus debate, John Edwards challenged him on his  
>> willingness
>> to include the nuclear power industry in negotiating our energy  
>> policy.
>> He said the history of the nuclear industry showed it could not be
>> trusted. Obama countered by saying that one of the conditions for any
>> energy plan is that it must be safe.  So far, the nuclear industry  
>> has
>> not shown itself to be able to dispose nuclear waste safely.  Edwards
>> agreed, then, that their positions were essentially the same.   
>> Excluding
>> the nuclear power industry from the table would not be fair.  Telling
>> the nuclear industry that it must meet certain safety criteria is
>> straight-forward and honest.
>>
>> 	      Politics of the past has been based on excluding people
>> and proposals from the table.  Obama's way of thinking is new on the
>> American and international scene.  Its newness makes it hard for  
>> us to
>> understand.  But, it is inherent in the very language we use that  
>> shapes
>> our thinking.  It is what makes Obama a uniter, not a divider.   
>> That's
>> why we trust him to serve as our agent of change.
>>
>>
>>
>> 	              Respectfully,
>>
>>
>>
>> 	              Gregg Heacock 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  
>> Try
>> it now.
>> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http:/ 
>> mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62
>> sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20>  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/


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/