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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
That's the best extended metaphor I've seen in a while. Kudos. I think I might actually want to read the assignment now.
Thank you, thank you, thank you and ... thank you.
What do you make of Mulroy's claim that his difference with Pinker is one of "emphasis not principle"? What does he mean by that? Does it mean that the two writers are not as diamterically opposed as we may have been led to believe?
i agree with rachel; that was some amazing metaphor magic. i did find it interesting that he tried to smooth everything over at the end. was he saying that all of the points that he made weren't all that important or did he just not want to hurt his feelings?
I'd like to see your answer to Steve's question before I jump in here, Tommy.
I don't see anything wrong with Pinker pissing on the achievements of the mavens. I might just join him. Anybody seen Mulroy around? I just drank a pot of prescriptivist coffee.
Do you see anything wrong with Mulroy hitting back Pinker so hard?
I also don't think Mulroy should had backed down and glossed over his statements toward Pinker's theories. I think I'm slowly disagreeing with Mulroy more frequently and turning in to a descriptivist. Have your views changed any since the start of this class?
Dr. Benton:
No. I do not think the two men are different in principle. But, one does have to question the validity of Mulroy's claim to principle, especially when he makes the statement that he does not want Pinker to teach his children.
ARB: I think that "hitting" back is good, as long as there is ample evidence to hit back with. So far, Mulroy has been hitting beneath the belt (his evidence is faulty).
Holly: Yes. My views has changed. I am more and more appreciating the prescriptivist agenda, while holding onto descriptivism at the same time.
Your comparisons are truly unique. You have a way of making things more understandable and entertaining. Good job!
Tommy, when it comes to the teaching of writing, I am currently trying to find myself and where I stand in this debate. I feel grammar is a necessity for writers. Without grammar you wouldn't have writing. Where "proper" lies, will always be "yet to be determined". Secretly though, grammar sure is a great way to find mistakes and justify your "reason for the grade". I would like to know how we teach "expression". How can one tell when another has truly dove into the paper or pulled a beer-shits effort(hope you catch the drift). What happens if you are attracted to one kind of style, so you judge all others by that style? How do you differentiate betweent stye and expression, and then personal justify why you gave the grade you did? Maybe grammar is a subconsious way of justifying ones personal prejudice against ones style?
Tommy, you lost me with the discussion of "principle." I find Mulroy's claim that he would prefer for his children to be taught by a prescriptivist school marm than by a sophisticated descriptivist like Pinker to be entirely consistent with the views Mulroy expressed in his article. Mulroy suggests that Pinker has risen to the level he has partly because of his command of SWE, yet, as Mulroy would have it, Pinker is now trying to pull the ladder up behind him in some misguided gesture of democratic generosity.
Dr. Benton: If a man believes that a person only disagrees in principle and not emphasis, then I take that to mean he agrees mostly with everything I believe in. That being said, I find the ethos of Mulroy faulty, in that I mean I cannot trust his nature, especially when he does not want Pinker to teach his kids. He derails the guy's article because it is not very thorough, but he is the same one that tries to link bad SAT scores to the decline of grammar, very shady given the evidence he has: statistics with no correlation. Then, it's hysterical to me when the guy says the importance of grammar is to read the classics and speak eloquently! Jesus are you kidding me. Looking at the pedigree of Mulroy (his background) it is easy to see why he leans to this statement, which again, leads me to believe this man is only speaking for a small amount of people. We learn that there is a rhetorical triangle, right? Who is this man trying to persuade? Is he speaking to other colleagues who admire the Greek tragedies? Indeed, I can think of authors' texts that are just as good, if not better, than the classics that abscond from SWE. Moreover, Mulroy speaks of the claim of eloquence. Humbug!! Eloquence is not always SWE; it's passion, fire and courage that swing the minds of man to action. In short, Mulroy is a man whose principle I concur with but whose article is leaky as a garage-sale coffe cup.
Post a Comment