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/