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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
LOL. The pants analogy was my favorite part! It was what made Prescriptivism make sense to me.
Why do you think the pants analogy was trite?
What do you mean by this: "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."
Does not what? Seem genuine? Fail to swing hard?
I think the pants analogy was trite because it went to far. I understand that he believes "inconsequential decorations" is important to him. I am not so sure that pinker was talking about "pants." (I'm being saracastic.) In fact, I do not believe that Pinker believes that grammar is not needed, even in fluff form.
I think Foster takes a few hits at the Prescriptivists, too. As far as tone, I believe that Foster is sincere (ethos), but there were times when he came off like a prick;
Post a Comment