Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Hindsight 20/20
Well, looking back on a semester that covered grammar theory, diagramming, active/passive voice, appositives, and relative clauses, I feel I have gotten the gist of many of these areas, but I am still unsure of myself. In fact, my confidence in these departments makes me wonder if it's even worth it, learning grammar terms that is. I know that these things are important but I feel that to be a good writer one just has to write, write, write some more and write again. (Whew!) As a pre-service teacher I want to help other people get past the struggles that has plagued me. One area that I have truly enjoyed is the difference between grammar, grammar terms and SWE.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Mulroy: The Response
Mulroy makes a very convincing argument in his proctection for traditional grammar. I'm starting to contend that it's not what is taught but how it's taught. Mulroy has not yet really layed an argument for this, except by saying that we should use Reed/Kellog diagrams as an aid. To me that's not "how." That is a "what" should be taught. And, I reckon that, in all honesty, teaching theory is not Mulroy's department, but it should be. Critical thinking involves how we approach a problem and how we solve the problem. Now, I am starting more, more to appreciate Mulroy's claim that traditional grammar is necessary to be a succesful reader and writer. Yes, that I will say with flirtation, but Mulroy never gives any plan. He only states what we should teach. I never thought that I would appreciate Mulroy and even respect his knowledge, but the man has won me over enough that I will say yes to his engagement: that traditional grammar makes you a holistic rhetorician.
I hope this relationship works.
I hope this relationship works.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Mulroy's Makin' Me a Believer, Man!
In" The Myth of the Bad Old Days," David Mulroy explains that a sub-group in the NCTE--ATEG--are increasing in number to teach grammar. The problem is the negative view of traditional grammar (88). Mulroy goes into the inherent strenghts of Reed-Kellog diagrams, explaining that they alone can accurately break down compllex sentences in Greek and Latin, not to mention useful aphorisms, of which tree diagrams are cumbersome and unpractical for the challenge. He also explains that Reed-Kellog diagrams are more efficient than the former because they are efficient. Another argument that Mulroy makes is that tree sentences are "...suitable to sentences written in normal order," but there are flaws when the subject can change (95). He also made the bold claim that students are having a hard time with comprehension vs. vocabulary, which he believes can be corrected if diagraming is used to explicate sentences, of which he himself does with expedient results.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Questions
1. According to Mulroy, who were the only individuals that could receive a higher education and what was their goal?
2. Why, do you think, is grammar so important when it comes to documentating history, culture and ideas? Does Mulroy believe this is important?
2. Why, do you think, is grammar so important when it comes to documentating history, culture and ideas? Does Mulroy believe this is important?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Me Kill, You Question.
In his essay, The First Liberal Art, David Mulroy says the liberal arts make students better learners not better speakers. For Mulroy, pragmatism is built upon the liberal arts, and I like this far better than the inverse.
Indeed, I would rather sit down and discuss philosophy, religion, culture, etc than the how-to's of chicken genocide for mass consumption or the how-to's to the extraction of precious resources for the greatest profit-margin on a balance sheet.
I, too, like Mulroy believe that "perfection" of any discipline can be reached through the synergy of the liberal arts with pragmatics. If the liberal arts make us better thinkers, then no matter what discipline we drift toward, we can excel in said discipline if we use the tenets from the liberal arts. And, that is the case the higher up the food chain a person reaches in the job market, no matter what field they enter.
For example, consider a sales associate at Wal-Mart. Their primary role is greet, scan, pack, exchange money, and express gratitude, low, low thinking skills right? I mean where are you gonna use liberal arts there. Now, let's look at the assistant manager of Wal-mart. He's got to coordinate, judge, prioritize, based upon employee quotas. Then we can include the manager of the whole store. He's got to be creative, motivational, and a thinker, which sounds a lot like the liberal arts.
And, while advances in technology will always be linear and static, the thinking that goes behind them are fluid and organic. So, with that being said, any one can be taught practical sciences, but not many people can connect them to humanity.
Indeed, I would rather sit down and discuss philosophy, religion, culture, etc than the how-to's of chicken genocide for mass consumption or the how-to's to the extraction of precious resources for the greatest profit-margin on a balance sheet.
I, too, like Mulroy believe that "perfection" of any discipline can be reached through the synergy of the liberal arts with pragmatics. If the liberal arts make us better thinkers, then no matter what discipline we drift toward, we can excel in said discipline if we use the tenets from the liberal arts. And, that is the case the higher up the food chain a person reaches in the job market, no matter what field they enter.
For example, consider a sales associate at Wal-Mart. Their primary role is greet, scan, pack, exchange money, and express gratitude, low, low thinking skills right? I mean where are you gonna use liberal arts there. Now, let's look at the assistant manager of Wal-mart. He's got to coordinate, judge, prioritize, based upon employee quotas. Then we can include the manager of the whole store. He's got to be creative, motivational, and a thinker, which sounds a lot like the liberal arts.
And, while advances in technology will always be linear and static, the thinking that goes behind them are fluid and organic. So, with that being said, any one can be taught practical sciences, but not many people can connect them to humanity.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Opus Duo: Confusus Hominus Consilio Ab Lingua. Mei Menda
The prompt: Why Should SWE be taught in school, if so, how?
It’s hard for me to imagine anyone suggesting that SWE should not be taught in school. And, in fact, if someone suggested otherwise I would be wondering how they reasoned it away.
The first obvious fact that SWE should be taught in school resolves around the principle of language and how we, as a society communicate with one another. Besides the obvious mediums of the visual, audible and text, we are also taught body language, eye contact, idiosyncrasies, dress, etc.
This cornucopia of communication allows us to express our how, what and why’s to the other person, sometimes getting extremely complicated when one person says one thing and they mean another, “He’s sooo bad!” An expression like this could be taken as a sign of affection, depending on who said it: Grandma or Groupie.
With that being said, the written medium has to be explicit in form, because the writer does not know for sure who their audience is going to be. And, even if they do know for sure, the syntax has to express what facial, pitch and body language cannot, hence the complication. However, grammar can be exciting! While it may sound ridiculous to say, especially given my cynicism toward the subject, my background in education has allowed me to see the “light.”
Indeed, Bloom’s Taxonomy, a theory that says there are six hierarchical levels of cognitive functionality, claims that we as humans learn more, and retain more, when the higher levels are in operation. Typically, the highest level—evaluation—is used at the college and postgraduate level, resulting in assignments that ask us to “evaluate if SWE is necessary for success.”
Conversely, the lowest end of Bloom’s Taxonomy says that knowledge is the most primal way of learning and retaining information. For example, “a noun is a person, place or thing.”
It is here where I believe the education system needs to be overhauled.
I believe the “how” to teaching grammar should be more deductive: give the big picture first and then “assemble” the parts. Analogously, no one solves a jig-saw puzzle without knowing what it is they are putting together; they see the picture then they assemble.
If we continue this metaphor, and use me as bait, I HAVE BEEN PUTTING TOGETHER MY JIG-SAW PUZZLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE HELL IM SUPPOSED TO BE PUTTING TOGETHER!!
When I hear commands like, “Never start a sentence with a conjunction” and “Never end a sentence with a preposition,” my instinct is to ask “why?” (evaluative). I do not think I’m smarter than other people, I just want to know. It helps me process my thoughts, gives me peace and allows me to be more productive as a learner.
In short, I think kids need to be given more faith, trust and autonomy. Teachers need to explain the big picture first and then work forward in creative, evaluative ways.
I sincerely believe if teachers would explain the nuts and bolts behind SWE, then the appreciation for it would increase exponetially.
Help with Title? Go here > http://www.online-dictionary.biz/latin/english/vocabulary/reference/consilio.asp
It’s hard for me to imagine anyone suggesting that SWE should not be taught in school. And, in fact, if someone suggested otherwise I would be wondering how they reasoned it away.
The first obvious fact that SWE should be taught in school resolves around the principle of language and how we, as a society communicate with one another. Besides the obvious mediums of the visual, audible and text, we are also taught body language, eye contact, idiosyncrasies, dress, etc.
This cornucopia of communication allows us to express our how, what and why’s to the other person, sometimes getting extremely complicated when one person says one thing and they mean another, “He’s sooo bad!” An expression like this could be taken as a sign of affection, depending on who said it: Grandma or Groupie.
With that being said, the written medium has to be explicit in form, because the writer does not know for sure who their audience is going to be. And, even if they do know for sure, the syntax has to express what facial, pitch and body language cannot, hence the complication. However, grammar can be exciting! While it may sound ridiculous to say, especially given my cynicism toward the subject, my background in education has allowed me to see the “light.”
Indeed, Bloom’s Taxonomy, a theory that says there are six hierarchical levels of cognitive functionality, claims that we as humans learn more, and retain more, when the higher levels are in operation. Typically, the highest level—evaluation—is used at the college and postgraduate level, resulting in assignments that ask us to “evaluate if SWE is necessary for success.”
Conversely, the lowest end of Bloom’s Taxonomy says that knowledge is the most primal way of learning and retaining information. For example, “a noun is a person, place or thing.”
It is here where I believe the education system needs to be overhauled.
I believe the “how” to teaching grammar should be more deductive: give the big picture first and then “assemble” the parts. Analogously, no one solves a jig-saw puzzle without knowing what it is they are putting together; they see the picture then they assemble.
If we continue this metaphor, and use me as bait, I HAVE BEEN PUTTING TOGETHER MY JIG-SAW PUZZLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE HELL IM SUPPOSED TO BE PUTTING TOGETHER!!
When I hear commands like, “Never start a sentence with a conjunction” and “Never end a sentence with a preposition,” my instinct is to ask “why?” (evaluative). I do not think I’m smarter than other people, I just want to know. It helps me process my thoughts, gives me peace and allows me to be more productive as a learner.
In short, I think kids need to be given more faith, trust and autonomy. Teachers need to explain the big picture first and then work forward in creative, evaluative ways.
I sincerely believe if teachers would explain the nuts and bolts behind SWE, then the appreciation for it would increase exponetially.
Help with Title? Go here > http://www.online-dictionary.biz/latin/english/vocabulary/reference/consilio.asp
Friday, September 19, 2008
Hatchet or Scalpel: The Butcher's Tools
Mulroy begins his essay with “The study of grammar helps us to understand the great literature of the past and to speak and write eloquently” (79). Romantic, with the belief that grammarians have gotten a raw deal by being labeled as stereotypical old fogeys, Mulroy contends that “the most important benefit of the prevalence of good grammar is that it contributes to the preservation and spread of standard languages” (79). His profound statement, earlier echoed, is backed up by the notion that historical language, at least in Europe, was quilt-like, where different unintelligible dialects hampered progress. As a result, there were economic, social and cultural factors that required “uniting large numbers of people together by a common tongue…to create standard national languages” (80).
But Mulroy explains that this was not going to be an easy task, given the unbridled spirit of the English, so eventually capitalism gave forth her fruit in the context of dictionaries and grammar books that became vogue in the 18th and 19th centuries. He later goes on to praise people like Samuel Johnson and Bishop Lowth, saying they “…contributed significantly to the creation of modern standard English…” (81).
On the other hand, Mulroy feels that Pinker, although a brilliant writer and linguist, in not so many words “pisses” on the achievments of these men as well as zealot mavens who trumpet the benefits of good grammar. So, like a careful surgeon, Mulroy slices away Pinker’s arguments, as if they were gangrene to the “grammar” body.
First, Mulroy lumps the NCTE and Julius Hook (an all-star in the English world) with Pinker’s faulty research skills, stating that Hook and Pinker both “…refrain from citing specific passages in Lowth’s grammar [book]” (82). Later, Mulroy praises this same Lowth by saying, “With some updating, it [Lowth’s book] could be used to give college students a needed overview of English grammar” (83).
Obviously, Mulroy is heralding the intrinsic application this book yields. But, Mulroy isn’t done carving yet. Next he carves away the cancerous definite article, as seen in Pinker’s eyes. Then he removes the tumor of infinitives that has plagued, in Pinker’s lens, modern English. With all these hypothetical foibles laid at Pinker’s feet, Mulroy does stitch up his contentions nicely saying, “My problem with Pinker’s influential presentation is one of emphasis, not principle” (85).
Toward the end of his essay Mulroy defends grammar instruction suggesting that grammar is intrinsic, increases vocabulary and “…greatly increases the number and complexity of the thoughts that one can actually express” (86-87). He also says that people have risen from poverty thanks to grammar.
But Mulroy explains that this was not going to be an easy task, given the unbridled spirit of the English, so eventually capitalism gave forth her fruit in the context of dictionaries and grammar books that became vogue in the 18th and 19th centuries. He later goes on to praise people like Samuel Johnson and Bishop Lowth, saying they “…contributed significantly to the creation of modern standard English…” (81).
On the other hand, Mulroy feels that Pinker, although a brilliant writer and linguist, in not so many words “pisses” on the achievments of these men as well as zealot mavens who trumpet the benefits of good grammar. So, like a careful surgeon, Mulroy slices away Pinker’s arguments, as if they were gangrene to the “grammar” body.
First, Mulroy lumps the NCTE and Julius Hook (an all-star in the English world) with Pinker’s faulty research skills, stating that Hook and Pinker both “…refrain from citing specific passages in Lowth’s grammar [book]” (82). Later, Mulroy praises this same Lowth by saying, “With some updating, it [Lowth’s book] could be used to give college students a needed overview of English grammar” (83).
Obviously, Mulroy is heralding the intrinsic application this book yields. But, Mulroy isn’t done carving yet. Next he carves away the cancerous definite article, as seen in Pinker’s eyes. Then he removes the tumor of infinitives that has plagued, in Pinker’s lens, modern English. With all these hypothetical foibles laid at Pinker’s feet, Mulroy does stitch up his contentions nicely saying, “My problem with Pinker’s influential presentation is one of emphasis, not principle” (85).
Toward the end of his essay Mulroy defends grammar instruction suggesting that grammar is intrinsic, increases vocabulary and “…greatly increases the number and complexity of the thoughts that one can actually express” (86-87). He also says that people have risen from poverty thanks to grammar.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Grammar Puss: Pinker's Such a Stinker?
In Grammar Puss, by Steve Pinker, the essay finally annihilates all those hypersensitive grammarians that are more concerned with exposing the weaknesses of others than improving language as a whole. The essay begins with the science of language and ends with the real purpose of improving language is "the clarity and style of written prose" (10). But the most interesting part was "Good writers go through anywhere from two to twenty drafts before releasing a paper" (11). As a person that is notorious in avoiding revisions, Pinker reminds the reader that the brain was not engineered to express complex trains of thought on paper. This is why writing is so difficult and explains why revisions are so prudent. The gist of his essay was to explain why "many prescriptive rules are just plain dumb..." (10) and that people should employ the standard english used in their dialect or what Foster would call discourse community. So, while Pinker does feel that tradition and rules are antiquated, he does feel that we must learn how to communicate with what is vogue in language communities.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Interview with McMahon, Chair of ECU English Dept.
Morning Dr. McMahon,
Thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions, I have taken the liberty to paraphrase your answers. If there are any irregularities, let me know. After your approval, I will be submitting this on a blog at tommyhammons@blogspot.com
What can grammar do for success, image and confidence?
How do you define grammar, connotatively?
Are you worried, psychologically, how your peers see you concerning grammar? Explain
Besides taking a grammar course, what’s the best way to exercise your grammar “chops?”
What are your concerns about Prescriptivists and Descriptivists?
What is your position on “literal meaning falling into disfavor in academia?”
Do you think this phenomenon is something to be worried about?
Do you think there is a connection between this trend and the declining interest in grammar instruction?
1a I believe that these three are interrelated, and that they have an important relation to a sound image.
2a. In the broadest sense, grammar is the structure of ideas and how they relate to one another.
3a. Yes! Though I am in a leadership position in the department, I feel that I have more to learn from my colleagues than they do from me with respect to many things, particularly grammar. I think this stems from the fact that I did not receive strong grammar training in high school.
4a. I think reading more books is the best way. Quite simply, if you read examples of good writing, you unconsciously begin to emulate them. Unfortunately, I think the proliferation of visual media is reducing the amount of time people spend reading and therefore reducing their opportunity to acquire strong grammar skills in this manner.
5a. Perhaps because I am a philosopher, I am more concerned with content. In short, I am concerned first with what people say, and secondarily with how they say it. However, I feel there is a false dichotomy between content and form because there is an inherent connection between the two. You cannot have one without the other; communication requires both content and structure. Simply put, if the structure of your expression is not sufficiently sound from a mechanical perspective, then it cannot convey content effectively.
6a. Disfavor, no. When we ask students to engage in analysis we are trying to get them to use their literal understanding of texts to anchor an interpretation. I do think that the movement away from formalist analyses and toward more reader response interpretation can result in a reduced emphasis on literal meaning. Mostly though, I think it is factors external to academia, factors in our culture, that have encouraged a decline in interest in literal meaning.
7a. Yes.
8a. Yes. In general, I think college instructors are more concerned with content, rather than structure, presumably because we assume that secondary educators have focused much of their attention on technical proficiency in their students’ writing. Of course, I assume that I need to help my students develop their grammar skills if they arrive here without a strong foundation in that area. Ultimately, I emphasize BOTH content and form because I feel that both are important and because I also have a duty to prepare students for the fact that in the real world, employers expect one not only to have good ideas, but also to be able to articulate those ideas in clear, correct prose.
Thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions, I have taken the liberty to paraphrase your answers. If there are any irregularities, let me know. After your approval, I will be submitting this on a blog at tommyhammons@blogspot.com
What can grammar do for success, image and confidence?
How do you define grammar, connotatively?
Are you worried, psychologically, how your peers see you concerning grammar? Explain
Besides taking a grammar course, what’s the best way to exercise your grammar “chops?”
What are your concerns about Prescriptivists and Descriptivists?
What is your position on “literal meaning falling into disfavor in academia?”
Do you think this phenomenon is something to be worried about?
Do you think there is a connection between this trend and the declining interest in grammar instruction?
1a I believe that these three are interrelated, and that they have an important relation to a sound image.
2a. In the broadest sense, grammar is the structure of ideas and how they relate to one another.
3a. Yes! Though I am in a leadership position in the department, I feel that I have more to learn from my colleagues than they do from me with respect to many things, particularly grammar. I think this stems from the fact that I did not receive strong grammar training in high school.
4a. I think reading more books is the best way. Quite simply, if you read examples of good writing, you unconsciously begin to emulate them. Unfortunately, I think the proliferation of visual media is reducing the amount of time people spend reading and therefore reducing their opportunity to acquire strong grammar skills in this manner.
5a. Perhaps because I am a philosopher, I am more concerned with content. In short, I am concerned first with what people say, and secondarily with how they say it. However, I feel there is a false dichotomy between content and form because there is an inherent connection between the two. You cannot have one without the other; communication requires both content and structure. Simply put, if the structure of your expression is not sufficiently sound from a mechanical perspective, then it cannot convey content effectively.
6a. Disfavor, no. When we ask students to engage in analysis we are trying to get them to use their literal understanding of texts to anchor an interpretation. I do think that the movement away from formalist analyses and toward more reader response interpretation can result in a reduced emphasis on literal meaning. Mostly though, I think it is factors external to academia, factors in our culture, that have encouraged a decline in interest in literal meaning.
7a. Yes.
8a. Yes. In general, I think college instructors are more concerned with content, rather than structure, presumably because we assume that secondary educators have focused much of their attention on technical proficiency in their students’ writing. Of course, I assume that I need to help my students develop their grammar skills if they arrive here without a strong foundation in that area. Ultimately, I emphasize BOTH content and form because I feel that both are important and because I also have a duty to prepare students for the fact that in the real world, employers expect one not only to have good ideas, but also to be able to articulate those ideas in clear, correct prose.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Ethos and Error
This essay was a mouthful. The whole theme was errors in the workplace. If we don't see grammar as important, then surely we will appreciate it since our mortgage depends on it. BEsides the methodology approach, which was quite extensive. I liked the fact that Beason said the business people saw image as the main problem with faulty writing and he he broke it down into five categories. It reminded me of Snow White. There's sleepy and dopey and "hasty," "careless," etc. the thing that jumped out at me was thinking problems vs. knowledge problems. It seems people see you as having "faulty thinking abilities..." (52). They do not think you can reason. That's huge! One mistake in a letter can label you for the rest of your tenure ant a job.
PBS: Foster Steals the Show!
Hey guys this is a fictitious play about a PBS scout trying to get a new show on the air. The executives have pitching the idea about a show dedicated to the study and origins of language and they are particularly interested in the decline of grammar in America and how that affects the U.S. on a global scale. Tommy Hammons, the PBS scout, is sent to the office of David Foster to try and let him know he was not selected for the show, but Foster’s incessant defense of his paper, “Tense Present,” persuades Tommy to give him another shot.
Setting: A full, bright office with hanging plants near the windows. A sign on the wall that says “To err is human and grammar will make you divine.” The desk is scattered with students’ papers and there is a paper-weight that has Foster’s family inside of it. The camera pans over to Tommy looking the office over as David Foster comes in wearing a Turtle-neck sweater with a pair of corduroy pants and hushpuppies. He’s also wearing a pair of wire-rim glasses that he never got rid of from the sixties and he’s smoking a pipe.
Foster: Well, good day Tommy
Tommy: Hi Dr. Foster
Foster: Uh, I believe we had a meeting today about my paper, Tense Present.
Tommy: Yes. Well, that’s what I need to talk to you about.
Foster: About? Why, what’s wrong?
Tommy: Dr. Foster, PBS just isn’t ready for a show that is based on your paper.
Foster: Are you kidding me? Language is everything and everywhere; it’s what let’s us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from the animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on. (Page 41 classmates)
Tommy: Yes, I know. I read the paper…bu-
Foster: Did you? Do you remember how I said that “…good writing is only as good as the principles on which it’s based” (43).
Tommy: Uh-huh. But what does that mean, exactly.
Foster: Well, “America is in the midst of a protracted Crisis of Authority in matters of language” (43).
Tommy: That sounds familiar?
Foster: It should be. It’s in my paper. Shall I continue?
Tommy nods his head in abeyance
Foster: You see there are two camps. The Descriptivists and the Prescriptivists. The Prescriptivists are like the Republicans. They’re conservative, while the Descriptivists are more “liberal” like the Democrats.
Tommy: Okaaay
Foster: The Descriptivists view writing as self-exploratory and expressive while the Prescriptivists look for systematic grammar, usage, semantics, rhetoric, etc (45).
Tommy: Yes, I know all that. But, what’s the big deal between these two camps? Why are they always fighting?
Foster: The Desciptivists believe that traditional English is conceived and carried on by WASPS.
Tommy: Right. Basically, old white guys who believe they know all and are all.
Foster: Right. But we got to have some form of unity or all hell will break out. Take for instance this Scientific Method philosophy that the Descriptivists have on language. They have these five rules, right. The first one says Language changes constantly.
Tommy: Well, it does.
Foster: Yeah. But, how much and how fast? (45).
Tommy: Look, can you just summarize everything you want to tell me. I’m getting very tired and I still got to read this paper by Larry Beason called “Ethos and error: How business People React to Errors”
Foster: Okay. In a nut-shell, you cannot have grammar without content and vice-versa. How can a person appreciate a significant thought without wading through all the syntax errors? Descriptivists believe some of these rules are arbitrary or even inconsequential (48). But, it’s not just what we say but how we want that other person to respond (50).
I’ll be the first one to admit that sometimes it’s better to speak with different dialects. Depending on where you are at socially or regionally, it’s far superior than SWE. I have students that have great, wonderful intellects and they are geniuses in their own discourse community, but in the academic world they are struggling. Would I not be doing a disservice to them and myself f I ignored their errors? Listen up! Because this is the meat of my argument. “Neither camp appears ever to have considered whether maybe the way prescriptive SWE was traditionally taught had something to do with it’s inutility” (53).
Tommy: You mean pedagogy.
Foster: Exactly! And, students are not going to give a damn about grammar unless you can show them the importance of it. Why, look at the capitalistic exploits of PCE. The politicians and corporations are only using terms like “economically disadvantaged,” because it sounds better than poor. It’s a form of censorship, designed to serve the status quo (55). Then you have AE. These poor saps are more concerned with insecurities and intellectual resumes than they are with really exposing the truth. In fact, AE’s “real purpose is concealment and its real motivation fear” (56).
Tommy: Okay. Cool. That helps a lot. I’ll talk with the “brass” and we’ll let you know.
Setting: A full, bright office with hanging plants near the windows. A sign on the wall that says “To err is human and grammar will make you divine.” The desk is scattered with students’ papers and there is a paper-weight that has Foster’s family inside of it. The camera pans over to Tommy looking the office over as David Foster comes in wearing a Turtle-neck sweater with a pair of corduroy pants and hushpuppies. He’s also wearing a pair of wire-rim glasses that he never got rid of from the sixties and he’s smoking a pipe.
Foster: Well, good day Tommy
Tommy: Hi Dr. Foster
Foster: Uh, I believe we had a meeting today about my paper, Tense Present.
Tommy: Yes. Well, that’s what I need to talk to you about.
Foster: About? Why, what’s wrong?
Tommy: Dr. Foster, PBS just isn’t ready for a show that is based on your paper.
Foster: Are you kidding me? Language is everything and everywhere; it’s what let’s us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from the animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on. (Page 41 classmates)
Tommy: Yes, I know. I read the paper…bu-
Foster: Did you? Do you remember how I said that “…good writing is only as good as the principles on which it’s based” (43).
Tommy: Uh-huh. But what does that mean, exactly.
Foster: Well, “America is in the midst of a protracted Crisis of Authority in matters of language” (43).
Tommy: That sounds familiar?
Foster: It should be. It’s in my paper. Shall I continue?
Tommy nods his head in abeyance
Foster: You see there are two camps. The Descriptivists and the Prescriptivists. The Prescriptivists are like the Republicans. They’re conservative, while the Descriptivists are more “liberal” like the Democrats.
Tommy: Okaaay
Foster: The Descriptivists view writing as self-exploratory and expressive while the Prescriptivists look for systematic grammar, usage, semantics, rhetoric, etc (45).
Tommy: Yes, I know all that. But, what’s the big deal between these two camps? Why are they always fighting?
Foster: The Desciptivists believe that traditional English is conceived and carried on by WASPS.
Tommy: Right. Basically, old white guys who believe they know all and are all.
Foster: Right. But we got to have some form of unity or all hell will break out. Take for instance this Scientific Method philosophy that the Descriptivists have on language. They have these five rules, right. The first one says Language changes constantly.
Tommy: Well, it does.
Foster: Yeah. But, how much and how fast? (45).
Tommy: Look, can you just summarize everything you want to tell me. I’m getting very tired and I still got to read this paper by Larry Beason called “Ethos and error: How business People React to Errors”
Foster: Okay. In a nut-shell, you cannot have grammar without content and vice-versa. How can a person appreciate a significant thought without wading through all the syntax errors? Descriptivists believe some of these rules are arbitrary or even inconsequential (48). But, it’s not just what we say but how we want that other person to respond (50).
I’ll be the first one to admit that sometimes it’s better to speak with different dialects. Depending on where you are at socially or regionally, it’s far superior than SWE. I have students that have great, wonderful intellects and they are geniuses in their own discourse community, but in the academic world they are struggling. Would I not be doing a disservice to them and myself f I ignored their errors? Listen up! Because this is the meat of my argument. “Neither camp appears ever to have considered whether maybe the way prescriptive SWE was traditionally taught had something to do with it’s inutility” (53).
Tommy: You mean pedagogy.
Foster: Exactly! And, students are not going to give a damn about grammar unless you can show them the importance of it. Why, look at the capitalistic exploits of PCE. The politicians and corporations are only using terms like “economically disadvantaged,” because it sounds better than poor. It’s a form of censorship, designed to serve the status quo (55). Then you have AE. These poor saps are more concerned with insecurities and intellectual resumes than they are with really exposing the truth. In fact, AE’s “real purpose is concealment and its real motivation fear” (56).
Tommy: Okay. Cool. That helps a lot. I’ll talk with the “brass” and we’ll let you know.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Foster: The First BLog
Tense Present
In the Essay, Tense Present, David Foster runs the whole gamut of Grammar. He attacks Descriptivists with sentences like “This is so stupid it practically drools” (47). Ouch! Frie (the person he talks about) has to be hurting right about now. I’m sure in the academia world this would be considered a TKO, total knock out! Really, I have never seen an academic paper ridicule another paper like that. It’s Krazy! But, Foster just doesn’t stop with the insults. He goes on to attack another Descriptivist, Steven Pinker who says “When a scientist considers all the high-tech mental machinery needed to order words into everyday sentences, prescriptive rules are, at best, inconsequential decorations” (48). This statement outrages Foster who goes into this defense using misplaced modifiers, confusing clauses, and questioning “who” exactly is offended by inconsequential decorations. That was fine! He should have stopped there! But…No, he doesn’t. He goes into this terrible analogy about pants and the acceptance of gender associated with pants. Lord, I felt like I was at a warehouse listening to a guy tell me why the Snickers was better than the Milky Way; the argument was trite when he decided to use the analogy of pants. Please, gimme a break! While Foster “hits” the Descriptivists hard, he also does not fail to swing at the Prescriptivists either, just not as hard. All in all, Foster appeals to readers by trying to speak with an honest tone that seems genuine even when it does not. His candid, refreshing rhetoric gives him a unique style and separates his essay from other essays with clear distinction.
In the Essay, Tense Present, David Foster runs the whole gamut of Grammar. He attacks Descriptivists with sentences like “This is so stupid it practically drools” (47). Ouch! Frie (the person he talks about) has to be hurting right about now. I’m sure in the academia world this would be considered a TKO, total knock out! Really, I have never seen an academic paper ridicule another paper like that. It’s Krazy! But, Foster just doesn’t stop with the insults. He goes on to attack another Descriptivist, Steven Pinker who says “When a scientist considers all the high-tech mental machinery needed to order words into everyday sentences, prescriptive rules are, at best, inconsequential decorations” (48). This statement outrages Foster who goes into this defense using misplaced modifiers, confusing clauses, and questioning “who” exactly is offended by inconsequential decorations. That was fine! He should have stopped there! But…No, he doesn’t. He goes into this terrible analogy about pants and the acceptance of gender associated with pants. Lord, I felt like I was at a warehouse listening to a guy tell me why the Snickers was better than the Milky Way; the argument was trite when he decided to use the analogy of pants. Please, gimme a break! While Foster “hits” the Descriptivists hard, he also does not fail to swing at the Prescriptivists either, just not as hard. All in all, Foster appeals to readers by trying to speak with an honest tone that seems genuine even when it does not. His candid, refreshing rhetoric gives him a unique style and separates his essay from other essays with clear distinction.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Kool Aid and the Peanut-Butter Sandwich Part II
Ready! Action!
Mulroy's piece expounds the importance of learning grammar. I concur. Grammar is like a big peanut-butter sandwich and when someone talks about it I've got to have something to drink to wash it down, hence the kool-aid metaphor. And, while Mulroy does give me something (grammar hurts SAT scores, literacy, foriegn-language skills, paraphrasing, intellecualism), he water downs the kool-aid (arguments) in discussing the importance of grammar (peanut-butter sandwich).
1. Credibility of the NCTE : Mulroy says "...the leadership of the largest and most influential association [says to pay less attention to formal grammar]" (4). Mulroy waterd down the "kool-aid," by suggesting that he knows more than the NCTE. Here's a thought: if the NCTE, which has thopusands of scholars and teachers at their intellectual arsenal, says we should focus on content rather than grammar, who should we listen to? I'll help you. If NASA said we landed on the moon, and one astronomer said we did not, who you going to listen to. And, maybe the NCTE feels grammar is important (which Mulroy would have you to believe they don't), but they just know that content should be a higher order concern.
2. The Straw Arguments: Mulroy wants you to believe that adult literacy, SAT scores, foreign language study and writing skills are significantly damaged by the lack of instruction in grammar. Th first three straws sound unfounded alone, and the last one, while sounding logical, was weak on (I'll get back 2 this...)
Mulroy's piece expounds the importance of learning grammar. I concur. Grammar is like a big peanut-butter sandwich and when someone talks about it I've got to have something to drink to wash it down, hence the kool-aid metaphor. And, while Mulroy does give me something (grammar hurts SAT scores, literacy, foriegn-language skills, paraphrasing, intellecualism), he water downs the kool-aid (arguments) in discussing the importance of grammar (peanut-butter sandwich).
1. Credibility of the NCTE : Mulroy says "...the leadership of the largest and most influential association [says to pay less attention to formal grammar]" (4). Mulroy waterd down the "kool-aid," by suggesting that he knows more than the NCTE. Here's a thought: if the NCTE, which has thopusands of scholars and teachers at their intellectual arsenal, says we should focus on content rather than grammar, who should we listen to? I'll help you. If NASA said we landed on the moon, and one astronomer said we did not, who you going to listen to. And, maybe the NCTE feels grammar is important (which Mulroy would have you to believe they don't), but they just know that content should be a higher order concern.
2. The Straw Arguments: Mulroy wants you to believe that adult literacy, SAT scores, foreign language study and writing skills are significantly damaged by the lack of instruction in grammar. Th first three straws sound unfounded alone, and the last one, while sounding logical, was weak on (I'll get back 2 this...)
Mulroy & Chapter 1: Is watered down kool-aid better than the real stuff?
America the Grammarless, written by David Mulroy, seeks to expound upon the importance of grammar by using faulty syllogisms that are all based on one observation: "The gist of my argument so far has been [America's educational world is hurting because of] the opposition to formal instruction in grmmar" (22). But, and I do not say this lightly, Mulroy waters down the kool-aid, man! You can't water down the kool-aid, when you give someone a thick, goopy, peanut-butter sandwich! ("Okay, just what the hell kind of analogy is that," someone might say.)
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
You & Grammar
Psychologically, grammar has always been a thorn in the side. There were days, starting in grade school, where I absolutely hated some of the rote memory tools employed along with primary diagnostic aids to gage your abilities. At that age I didn’t know about the thought processes of man, or how people think to arrive at their answers. I didn’t know that multiple choice/true-false/ and fill-in-the-blank were basic aids to helps students memorize the material. Most of the tools that my primary teachers employed were “canned” tests. You could even see where the material came from. Looking back I reckon I could have done the same thing as them. I’ve always been inquisitive by nature and that will never change, so knowing this positive trait in me I’m starting to know why I did so poorly in my younger years in grammar: know one dissected the “Grammar Gorilla!” In science, I learned how the planets were formed, how gravity affects nature and how the body works, but in grammar you learn that the “rules” change, grammar is ambiguous and, God for heaven’s sake, DON’T ASK QUESTIONS!!!!!!! “It just is Tommy,” the annoyed teacher would answer back. Sometimes I would get an “I don’t know Tommy,” which sounded better than “It just is.” It (grammar) is just a bunch of capricious nonsense became my motto. Some teachers would ignore my comma splice, some would not. Some teachers were more better at ignoring my double-negatives, some were not. Some teachers would ignore my improper placement of I, some would not. And, so, this cat and mouse game continued until I arrived at college. I guess, to a large degree, college for me always welcomed the why’s of man. Most of the professors knew the why’s and were glad you wanted to know them to<(don’t even know how to use the to/too). All in all, I am excited to learn grammar, because I really, really, really-really want to know how to write professionally. Having my prose look like James Bond in a tux, while skirting the Audubon shooting villains, excites me to break the grammar rules, look cool while doing it, and have the ladies melt as I dangle my “modifier.”
P.S. I also want to break the crutch of “spell-check” into a thousand pieces and use them for customized tooth-picks.
P.S. I also want to break the crutch of “spell-check” into a thousand pieces and use them for customized tooth-picks.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
America the Grammarless: Wishy-Washy. Not all the Grammar Stains Came Out Mom!
After reading America the Grammarless by David Mulroy, my first inclination is to play the Devil's Advocate. No doubt, as college students the default mechanism in all of us should be to read every essay put before us with hyper-critical lenses. Queerly enough, I am also taking a Persuasion/Logic course that enlightened my eyes to some logical errors in Mulroy's piece, America the Grammarless. For the sake of brevity, I will number my arguments against Mulroy's piece.
1. "Grammatical terms are part of an orderly set of concepts that describe the organizational features of all intelligible speech and writing" (3).
1a. Indeed, one needs these terms. Analogously, the mason needs bricks to build the wall, so a student needs grammatical terms to structure sentences, paragraphs, essays, etcetera. But I also need to learn how to properly fit these bricks (terms) together. Mulroy's position seems as if the "bricks" are more important than the skill?
2. "...association [the NCTE] of English teachers has been urging its members for decades to pay less attention to formal instruction in grammar lends credence to the widespread impression that our students' understanding of that subject is at an all-time low" (4).
2a. Okay. If all these teachers of English (secondary, post-secondary alike) concur that less attention to grammar helps the over-all writing process, then is Mulroy's mind far better?
2b. And, is there a difference between instruction in grammar vs. formal instruction in grammar? Maybe the NCTE is opposed to lower based cognitive exercises that perpetuate rote memory skills, which is a good pedagogy.
3. "...the assertion that instruction in grammar hurts composition is, in practice, the same as saying that it should not be taught all" (6).
3a. Is it? Of course not! The NCTE is just trying to adhere to a new teaching strategy.
4. Mulroy stretches the gamit when he hypothesizes that the adult literacy performance in the U.S. is weakened by the neglect of grammar (9).
4a I'm really astounded by this argument. Essentially, Mulroy is saying that the BIGGEST factor toward the delinquency in literacy in the sixties and seventies was, are you ready: Anti-grammar policies. What about socio-economic factors, cultural revolutions (increased drug use included), the Vietnam War, etc. Im sure, statistically, I could theorize a plethora of problems that affected literacy levels.
5. "The clearest evidence of a problem in language arts instruction may lie in the well-known decline in the nation's SAT scores" (10).
5a. The SAT doesn't even deal with grammar:
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat/chapter1section1.html
The Verbal Questions
The SAT contains a total of 78 verbal questions, divided into three types. All three types are multiple-choice.
Sentence completions (19 questions). You are given a sentence with one or two blanks and must choose the best word or words to fill the blanks.
Analogies (19). You are given two words that are related in some way and must choose the word pair that shares the same relation.
Reading comprehension (40). These questions test your ability to read and understand facts and arguments based on a reading passage.
5a. (cont.) Come one, really. Mulroy suggests that since grammar is being avoided in grade school, SAT participants are getting low scores in reading. Again, this is a logical fallacy. There could be a wide range of problems that suggest otherwise: poor study habits, poverty, abscence of reading programs. Should I go on?
In closing, Mulroy's heart is in the right place, but his scientific methodology is not. In fact, the whole essay is littered with logical inconsistencies that create a piece that is hard to accept. It would be quite a challenge to find anyone that does not believe grammar is unimportant (myself included), but lower order concerns like comma use, fragments and capitalization are not nearly as important as higher order concerns.
1. "Grammatical terms are part of an orderly set of concepts that describe the organizational features of all intelligible speech and writing" (3).
1a. Indeed, one needs these terms. Analogously, the mason needs bricks to build the wall, so a student needs grammatical terms to structure sentences, paragraphs, essays, etcetera. But I also need to learn how to properly fit these bricks (terms) together. Mulroy's position seems as if the "bricks" are more important than the skill?
2. "...association [the NCTE] of English teachers has been urging its members for decades to pay less attention to formal instruction in grammar lends credence to the widespread impression that our students' understanding of that subject is at an all-time low" (4).
2a. Okay. If all these teachers of English (secondary, post-secondary alike) concur that less attention to grammar helps the over-all writing process, then is Mulroy's mind far better?
2b. And, is there a difference between instruction in grammar vs. formal instruction in grammar? Maybe the NCTE is opposed to lower based cognitive exercises that perpetuate rote memory skills, which is a good pedagogy.
3. "...the assertion that instruction in grammar hurts composition is, in practice, the same as saying that it should not be taught all" (6).
3a. Is it? Of course not! The NCTE is just trying to adhere to a new teaching strategy.
4. Mulroy stretches the gamit when he hypothesizes that the adult literacy performance in the U.S. is weakened by the neglect of grammar (9).
4a I'm really astounded by this argument. Essentially, Mulroy is saying that the BIGGEST factor toward the delinquency in literacy in the sixties and seventies was, are you ready: Anti-grammar policies. What about socio-economic factors, cultural revolutions (increased drug use included), the Vietnam War, etc. Im sure, statistically, I could theorize a plethora of problems that affected literacy levels.
5. "The clearest evidence of a problem in language arts instruction may lie in the well-known decline in the nation's SAT scores" (10).
5a. The SAT doesn't even deal with grammar:
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat/chapter1section1.html
The Verbal Questions
The SAT contains a total of 78 verbal questions, divided into three types. All three types are multiple-choice.
Sentence completions (19 questions). You are given a sentence with one or two blanks and must choose the best word or words to fill the blanks.
Analogies (19). You are given two words that are related in some way and must choose the word pair that shares the same relation.
Reading comprehension (40). These questions test your ability to read and understand facts and arguments based on a reading passage.
5a. (cont.) Come one, really. Mulroy suggests that since grammar is being avoided in grade school, SAT participants are getting low scores in reading. Again, this is a logical fallacy. There could be a wide range of problems that suggest otherwise: poor study habits, poverty, abscence of reading programs. Should I go on?
In closing, Mulroy's heart is in the right place, but his scientific methodology is not. In fact, the whole essay is littered with logical inconsistencies that create a piece that is hard to accept. It would be quite a challenge to find anyone that does not believe grammar is unimportant (myself included), but lower order concerns like comma use, fragments and capitalization are not nearly as important as higher order concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)