Gregg:
I actually didn’t mean to sound as if I was saying Obama doesn’t
write well – I was attempting that rather difficult trick of talking about
a political issue as if I were disinterested. I’m slated to teach a
section of composition next fall, as well as a rotating-topics seminar in
which I’m focusing on political language, so I’m trying to practice
phrasing things in ways that don’t make students from <insert
political position of choice here> feel excluded. I do want to tug a bit
more at the “framing” thread, though.
There’s not a “grammar of hope” –
English doesn’t have, for example, an optative mood. However, choice of
phrasing can position something as an assertion or an assumption,
etc., and political discourse takes advantage of this. Listeners may react
differently to “X’s policies had bad results, so we should do Y”
than they do to “Because X’s policies had bad results, we should do
Y.”
In the sense that Lakoff uses it “framing” tends to
more an issue of choice of terms – e.g. whether we call something a “tax”
or a “revenue enhancement.” Orwell, of course, also dealt with this
type of issue, but in addition drew attention to the political consequences of
particular constructions, such as the use of the passive to avoid
accepting responsibility. The same information can have a very different effect
on an audience if packaged as a relative clause than it would if packaged as a main
clause. I don’t want to call that framing, partly because the term has
become its own fad, partly because of the association of the term with word choice,
and partly because I don’t want to imply that it’s some kind
of new linguistic observation (I find myself wanting some kind of requirement
to the effect of, “Thou shalt not quote Lakoff without quoting Orwell”).
Whatever we call it, though (“canting,” maybe? But that makes it
sound new), it’s relevant. All candidates take advantage of the resources
that English grammar provides and deploy them for political advantage, so regardless
of one’s political affiliation, close analysis of political speeches (and
books, and ads and…) is worthwhile.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gregg
Heacock
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar defines the candidates.
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