paragraphs

Summary:
In 1849 STephan Clark published Practical Grammar Illustrated by a Complete System of Diagrams. Reed and Kellog went on to reform sentence diagramming. Clark used balloons to diagram sentences while Reed and Kellogg used lines for the first time. This approach was used in many classrooms, but was not put into a textbook until Kolln's Understanding English Grammar and Mark Lester's Grammar and Usage in the Classroom.

Expansion:
The fact that there has been evidence that there has been some imporvement in student writing thanks to "sentence combining" is good to hear. It is amazing that simply combining simple sentences has such a positive impact on student's writing. At the same time, it makes sense that this would improve one's writing, as one has to truly think about the meaning of sentences and how they can work together in order to combine the sentences. I had learned how to combine sentences to an extent by way of writing through the years, but had never actually been taught this skill specifically until one of my classes last year. Since then, I have found a positive change in my writing, which is refreshing.

Questions

1. Where did the term "university" come from?
2.Judging from the ups and downs of the world of words, does it seem that the study of grammar or literature is more important in the success of people as a whole?

crops

In David Mulroy's The War Against Grammar, Chapter Two, the claim is made that, "Questioning the value of basic grammar is like asking whether farmers should know the names of their crops and animals." The same as it is ludicrous to wonder why it is necessary for a farmer to be familiar with the plants and animals that are their livelihood it is nonsensical for any individual that wants to be successful in reading and writing to ask why they should master the statutes of basic grammar. The same as a farmer is not going to automatically know all of the in-and-outs of farming, it is not expected that one should know all of the rules of grammar instantly. One must learn from mistakes and practice in order to reach perfection.

Moreover, there are some basics that a farmer must be aware of before they can run a farm. There is a good chance that there will be minor slip-ups along the way, but the basics of what cows should eat and how much water tomatoes need should be known for the most part. Similarly, the basics of grammar: verbs, nouns, subject, etc. should be laid down as the groundwork for writing and reading in order to have a lush intellectual garden.

greek salad

In David Mulroy's second chapter, "The first Liberal Art," he goes all the way back to the influence of the Greeks and Romans on the English language. While the Greeks acquired the idea of the alphabet from the Phoenicians, it was the first of it's kind and allowed people to express complex ideas and stories as they had never been able to before. While prose is the more widely used form of communication today, the roots of writing can be found in poetry, as the first things to be written were the songs that were sung.

The likes of Homer and others employed and spread the use of the alphabet. The Romans were fast to emulate the Greeks alphabet, which played a major role in making their way up in the world. The Hellenistic period was one of expansion of the Greek and Roman literature. The Greek Plato came up with seven areas of study that all his students had to learn before tackling philosophy. Of course, the Romans were quick to follow with the institution of the same areas into their curriculum, deaming them "the liberal arts." Plato's Socrates stated that all peole had a priori of knowledge which enabled them to know the rules of their language. While it is true that knowledge of grammar comes from experience, it is still learned rather than just known. The liberal arts worked to instill the foundations of thought and problem solving due to the notion that knowledge must be learned, rather than that it is already known.

The mandates of the English language were layed down in greater detail by Dionysius and added to later by Donatus and Priscian. The books of the latter two became the basis of the study of the liberal arts. While grammar was not one of the most important of the seven subjects taught, it was still held in high regard since none of the ideas of the others would be possible to communicate without knowledge of this area.

SWEet

To teach SWE or to not teach SWE, that is the question. This is one of the reasons that I chose to not be an English education major. In the end, I have a feeling that whether or not I, or any other teacher, thinks it should be taught won't matter. What will matter will be whatever happens to be on the tests, and that is what teachers will preach to their students in order to keep their jobs.

Aside from what some might call a cynical, but what I like to think of as truthful, view of the world; if there were a utopia, there are certain things that I would prefer. While I have a great disdain for SWE when it comes to knowing all of the terms and diagramming sentences, I do feel that it has helped me a great deal to be able to communicate in this manner. I'm not sure that it is absolutely necessary to know the ins- and-outs of grammar in order to efficiently speak and write in SWE. However, when it comes to learning a second language, I think that it does help a great deal.

I have heard many people say that they learned more about grammar while learning a foreign language than they did in their English classes, and I can say that I had a similar experience. I was taught the fundamental operations of the English language by way of speaking and writing, as opposed to learning the backbone of the language before putting it to use. This is necessary when learning a language from scratch, but when it comes to an individual's first language, these rules are engrained into the individual's mind. The problem arises when these rules are not those of SWE.

I have friends that communicate more efficiently in English as their second language than those that have been speaking it their entire lives. It could be argued that it is easier to teach someone SWE as a second language than to re-teach someone that speaks incorrect English. Schools have ESL in order to aid children in learning English, however, there is no aid for children that have been brought up in an ungrammatical atmosphere.

In order to combat both of these setbacks, why not let the children help each other in learning SWE? In areas that have had dramatic growth in Spanish speakers, some schools have instituted programs that have children learning in Spanish for half of the day and English for the other half. This approach would cultivate a better understanding in both areas, since the children would be forced to learn the rules for one language in order to catch onto the other language. In addition, children would progress at a faster rate and not have to be singled out from the rest of their class to go to a special class.

In the end, all of the children come out with a second language and a better understanding of SWE. This is not a fool-proof method. There are many children that might fall through the cracks or teachers that are not able to teach the grammatical aspects due to thier own deficency in this area while they were in school. However, if such programs were instituted at an early age and touched on throughout the years, the children would not have to worry about it later on when it is more difficult for them to learn this new information when they have grown accustomed to speaking and writing in a certain way.

Putting down Pinker

David Mulroy takes up for all of the staunch grammarians out there in his essay, "The Scandal of Prespritivism." Beginning with some of the background of grammar, Mulroy cites William Caxton's view of the alterations in speech in the 1400's along with the birth of the first dictionaries and grammar books to enforce the rules that were impossible to be dished out merely by schools. The rest of the article revolves around dicounting the assertions that grammar was not all that important, which were made by Pinker. Mulroy points out that Pinker, along with Hook, doesn't use specific sources in backing up his statements and that he uses "anonymous examlples" in order to put down English grammar. He goes on to say that while Pinker mentions split infinitives being used during the 18th century, that they were not mentioned until 1864 and that the assertion, "That we can communicate with our instictive abilities is undeniable; that we can do so 'with exquisite precision' on the basis of instinct alone is doubtful" (85). Mulroy finishes up with saying that he supports dialects, but that it is impossible to fully express oneself without knowledge of standard English and that while he respects Pinker, he would rather have someone else teach his children.

interview

Dr. Hughes, when asked what she thought of Mulroy’s argument, that grammar instruction has become less common because, “the whole concept of literal meaning has fallen into disfavor in academia,” she replied with a good deal of distaste. While she is not against the individual learning of grammar, she does not feel that it is necessary to implement within the classroom. In her opinion, there is not a need for the students to know grammatical terms in order to adequately communicate. She gave the example of trying to explain to a student that there was a sentence fragment in their paper, but instead of using this term, which they didn’t know, she talked about sentence boundaries. The student still received the information and can apply that knowledge in the future, despite the fact that a different term was used to explain the concept. Dr. Hughes is aware of the decline in grammar instruction in the past few decades, but doesn’t feel that there is need for change. If any change needs to occur, she feels that students should read and write more. She feels that these are the keys to truly grasping the language and becoming a better writer. Dr. Hughes stated that, “Student’s must have pride in their writing first,” that is, before grammar instruction is even considered.

Pinker

In “Grammar Puss” Steven Pinker puts the grammar mavens in their place. While these staunch advocates of “correct grammar” are usually the ones correcting others, Pinker critically analyzed a number of claims made by various mavens in order to make the point that these elite criticizers are out of touch how language has adapted and what truly makes sense when it comes to the English language. Pinker expounds on the unruliness of the language, stating, “As for outlawing sentences that end with a preposition (impossible in Latin for reasons irrelevant to English) -- as Winston Churchill would have said, it is a rule up with which we should not put.” Rather than living in the past, Pinker feels that people must move past these petty quibbles and focus more on the actual act of writing and reading. He argues these are the areas that people should place their time and effort rather than the nonsensical grammatical rules that govern the English language, writing, “The aspect of language use that is most worth changing is the clarity and style of written prose.” I agree with Pinker’s stance, that grammar should not be at the forefront of education, since even the most educated seem lost. Yet, Pinker is obviously still well informed in grammar, or he would not be able to make such a strong argument against it. Thus, while I don’t think that it is imperative to be educated in grammar, I definitely don’t think it could hurt.

for better or worse

Larry Beason delves into what really gets under people’s skin when they are reading those annoying work e-mails or student papers in “Ethos and Error: How Business People React to Errors.” He surveyed people of various ethnicities, sexes, and occupations in order to find if any of these factors impacted their tolerance of grammar mistakes. This study was done in an effort to better prepare students for the work-place and enable teachers to give them the knowledge that they will need to be successful. Beason states that, ‘The interviews suggest…that the extent to which errors harm the writer’s image is more serious and far-reaching than many students and teachers might realize”(48). With this knowledge the student may be more motivated to improve their grammar skills, knowing that they will be judged by them. Yet, Beason reassures the reader that, “A person’s ethos is established by a network of extra-textual and textual features, error being but one” (60). While Beason does display interesting findings, he doesn’t give many alternatives for how the classroom could be altered for the better.

sticking to the facts

In “Tense Present” David Foster Wallace breaks down the various aspects of Bryan A. Garner’s “A Dictionary of Modern American Usage.” He explains how Garner has taken and inventive and ingenious approach to creating a dictionary. The uses this piece of work in order to accentuate the thesis of the entire paper: tradition vs. egalitarianism in the world of grammar. Though, Wallace does admit that it is, “easier to be dogmatic than Democratic, especially about issue that are both vexed and highly charged,” he does his best to look at all views of the issue(5). Being a self-proclaimed “snoot,” there are times when Wallace goes off on a tangent or two. One of his main stances is that dictionaries should not be regarded as the God of all that is right and true in the English language. He makes the point that, “certain conservative dictionaries were actually conceived and designed as corrective responses to the ‘corruption’ and ‘permissiveness’ of certain liberal dictionaries”(3). He touches on how dictionaries have become more descriptive rather than prescriptive over time. Garner does his best to battle this trend by supplying the reader with more of the history and reasoning behind terms and rules. Wallace also discusses the need to communicate in various dialects, but that there is only one dialect when it comes to the academic arena, SWE. Moreover, despite receiving scrutiny for voicing his opinions, that students must learn this dialect in order to be successful, he continues to stand by his guns.

I highlighted over fifty words in David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” that to look up after I finished the reading, because I was unsure of the meaning. While I could decipher most of the word’s round-about meaning from context clues, I was really only guessing. The fact that I was left guessing at the vocabulary used in a paper about grammar gives me little hope that I know much of anything about grammar or ever will. When it comes to grammar, I am most often guessing. While I know how to correct a sentence, I don’t know the terminology for what was incorrect to begin with.

Aside from fuming with frustration while reading this piece, there were some points that stuck with me. I found Wallace’s statement that “AE’s real purpose is concealment and its real motivation fear” to hit the nail on the head. I had never thought about this issue in such a way. I’m not sure what can be done to counteract this habit in America, or if there is even room for change.

The other interesting point that Wallace made pertained to a SNOOTlet having only one dialect, the same as the child that only communicates in the dialect they were raised with, and fails in the classroom. I have always been intrigued by dialects, but had never considered that they are like individual languages. Moreover, to converse with multiple groups, is to know a number of manners of communication. I just happens that there is only one dialect when it comes to the academic arena.

As Mulroy spoke of people that truly don't know the meaning of terms if they are unable to use them, the number of students who were oblivious to the definition of a clause and the inadequacy of education in the realm of grammar, I felt as if I was being called out for all of my faults. Mulroy touches on many of the problems that college professors face today due to the lacking of their students in grammar. The likes of Orwell and Elbow are said to be the root of the sad state of today's students for their stance against grammar. I am one of those students that can identify a correct sentence without knowing the exact reason. While I don't feel that the education of all of today's youth is completely down the gutter, I do think that there is room for improvement. I feel that the first step is to educate the future teachers of these students about the basics of grammar. When I get down on myself for not being as well informed about grammar as I should be or point the finger at my teachers, I have to step back and realize that I learned what was put in front of me and that my teachers may not of had the ability to point me in the right direction even if they wanted to. Despite Mulroy's bad prognosis for older individuals attempting to learn grammar, I am an old dog that will learn new tricks.

changing for the better

Filling the blank lines on the page with large unsteady letters, I was kept busy for hours as a child. I was enthralled with learning to write letters, which led to words and then sentences. There was still fun to be had with the basics of sentence structure, but at some point in my grammar past I lost the drive to know more than what was absolutely needed in order for me to get by in English. I recall daydreaming about my teachers just making up the rules as they went along, due to the craziness of the grammar laws that they drilled into my head day in and day out. Grammar revolted me; keeping me from fully enjoying reading and writing for a good deal of my education.
With college, came the feeling of liberation, as I found my professors more interested in the critical thinking and overall understanding of a text rather than whether or not a paper was grammatically correct. I felt free to do as I pleased on my papers, easily forgetting the red marks for grammatical mistakes in light of the overall high score given for the paper.
My grammar-free life was short lived. I started working at my school’s writing center and was flabbergasted by the total lack of any grammatical sense in one paper after another. Forget understanding the text or making an amazing observation within a paper, I couldn’t even understand what some of the people were writing about.
The time I spent reading and helping individuals with little or no grammatical training or understanding led me to the revelation that the lovely points and inquisitive thoughts would not exist if it weren’t for rules within the English language that allow for a level playing ground for all to write and read. I played with the idea that even these rules that we hold up so highly today were born from the imagination of individuals, but that following these rules should not limit our own creativity. If anything, being informed of the various parts of speech and how they work together to make a complete idea allows for these grammatical walls to be more easily broken.
It now seems to me that to deem grammar insignificant is simple-minded and lazy. I was perhaps one of these grammar bums. If it were possible to go back in time to the little girl that loathed the grammar lessons, I would hope that I would suck it up and learn what was being taught completely. However, beyond my control over how I handled information that was presented to me, I would have hoped that my teachers would have presented me with more to work with. Grammar seemed to take the back burner to reading and writing. We were basically taught what we would be tested over on the TAAS, which I think is a shame. I feel that standardized tests were a major reason that I was robbed of learning all of the things that I truly needed to know, because teachers were given a formula to teach rather than bestowing their students with a true understanding.
All blaming aside, I am now in control of my own grammar destiny, and I plan to make things right. While I feel that at this point in my education content does rank above grammar, as far as the classroom is concerned, there was a time when content was impossible since there was no basis for grammar. I am looking to improve that grammar foundation, which I hope will strengthen the core of whatever my imagination produces.

grammar

Starting a blog makes me just about as nervous as grammar. I am not as familiar with either of them as I would like to be, so this should be interesting. I know that I will mess up in both areas, but I hope to improve.