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.