802. msivorytower - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:14 AM PT
grammer = grammar
Hey! Four out of six times spelled correctly! That must be a record for me.
803. tmachine - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:37 AM PT
msit: why do you find it amusing that handwriting--as a skill within the capabilities of almost any normally intelligent human being--is increasingly ignored in schools? I have always felt that beautiful, stylish handwriting is, in its own small way, a great form of public self-expression. I also believe (mistakenly, perhaps) that people who care about handwriting are more likely to care about the sense and beauty of the words they record with it. I struggle with my own children to get them to try hard with their handwriting (and believe me it's a struggle), and it bothers me greatly that so many seem to be anticipating its demise with insouciance. Don't you derive some pleasure from reading "personal memos," as you put it (what about letters? or vacation postcards? or shopping lists?) written in an attractive, readable, flowing hand?
804. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:42 AM PT
Please, I, beg you, don't discard grammar instruction. I agree that grammar checks will be increasingly available, (and presumably better)in the future. However, there is something to be said for standardized grammar in writing. It aids in clarity and style. It provides an intellectual common for people whose spoken language may separate them.
Lastly on a personal note, I hate grammar checkers. I do so for several reasons. First, it annoys me when it redlines my writing over matters of style. Second, it annoys me when it's right and I'm wrong. Lastly, it annoys me when it urges me to correct the grammar of some appellate court opinion. That would be presumptuous. I am more concerned with courts accepting my position on the law rather than my position on grammar, or my computer's for that matter.
805. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
"However, there is something to be said for standardized grammar in writing. It aids in clarity and style. It provides an intellectual common for people whose spoken language may separate them."
You don't need formal instruction for everyone to use more or less the same grammar in writing.
Moreover, if you want pupils to learn English grammar, make them learn the grammar of some other language and in the process they will naturally come to know Standard English grammar.
806. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
Far more important than grammar is the ability to express oneself clearly and forcefully. And I deny completely that formal grammar instruction helps one achieve that goal.
807. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 13, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
While I'm not ready to advocate for some institutional means of prescriptive grammar, I believe that our current system of modeling after notably elegant writers/speakers is needed.
I agree wholeheartedly that learning another language is an excellent means of learning grammar. My limited foreign language instruction rewarded me many times over in understanding Enlgish, and was ample justification for the study in and of itself.
808. toonces - Jan. 13, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
Regressing to the last topic for a moment,
Re: Message #778
"English has definitely declined in Pakistan and Bangladesh..."
Re: Message #780
"There is no doubt at all that the number of speakers of English as a first/second language in India has gone up dramatically since 1947..."
Hmmm. I wonder if this is part of the reason there are so many Indian software engineers around here and so few Pakistanis.
809. Msivorytower - Jan. 13, 1999 - 1:29 PM PT
TM
No, I don't generally get pleasure from reading historical script. While I understand your appreciation of the skill behind handwriting, I, personally don't see why children should receive a grade for handwriting. It is archaic to the extent that it is a non-essential skill for children to learn, and, for me, down the list of important non-essentials.
I don't mean to belittle your appreciation of the art, but I see no sense in forcing my daughter to become highly skilled in a craft that will not be seen by most, will not win her fame, will not be anything but a personal affection.
And I agree completely with Message #805 and Message #806.
810. CalGal - Jan. 13, 1999 - 1:37 PM PT
I think you mean "affectation"?
811. Msivorytower - Jan. 13, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
No, I mean affection.
A personal appreciation, love, affection.
812. CalGal - Jan. 13, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT
"I see no sense in forcing my daughter to become highly skilled in a craft that....will not be anything but a personal affection."
An affection is an emotion. A craft is not.
She might maintain her writing skills out of an affection for the craft.
813. Msivorytower - Jan. 13, 1999 - 2:22 PM PT
Yes. That is correct.
I see nothing wrong with the sentence. You're being your usual busybody self. Now needing to defend your insertion into the discussion.
814. DanDillon - Jan. 13, 1999 - 2:33 PM PT
The notion that proves most disturbing here to me comes in the form of academic deprivation. I should like to impose upon those who claim that the teaching of English grammar to native speakers is unnecessary to explain their reasons for believing so with *tangible* and *substantive* remarks.
Indeed, the original question was how, not whether. (These people sould prepare for scorn, ridicule, and a good schooling.)
815. CalGal - Jan. 13, 1999 - 2:38 PM PT
Ms,
??????
Your sentence, as it stands, does not seem accurate to me. Perhaps I am wrong.
Typos and spelling errors being not uncommon occurrences in your posts, I assumed that you originally meant "affectation", which was my only reason for pointing it out.
816. CalGal - Jan. 13, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
"You don't need formal instruction for everyone to use more or less the same grammar in writing."
Yes, but isn't it true that we use grammar in more or less the same way because we've all been schooled in the basics?
If the core that we all more or less adhere to were to slowly erode, I think the clarity that you now take for granted would start to suffer as a result.
If you agree that the rules of grammar should be followed but that there is no need to formally include this in a child's education, then this is a narrower issue.
(I am quite sure that this post is grammatically correct while completely lacking force and clarity.)
817. arkymalarky - Jan. 13, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
Grammar should be taught in the context of writing and reading, imo. It irritates me no end for teachers to spend literally weeks teaching students the parts of speech without ever having them write a paragraph of their own. These teachers invariably complain that Johnny *still* can't recognize a noun. The way grammar has been taught students do not even see that its purpose is to aid effective written communication. They do not even connect the study of grammar with literature and composition at all. There's something convoluted about emphasizing grammar over the purpose for which it was created.
The best analogy I ever heard wrt grammar instruction was in an inservice workshop focusing on writing. The presenter said teaching grammar out of the context of writing is like trying to teach a child to ride a bicycle by labeling the parts of the bicycle and not letting him try to ride it. He also had a neat little handout which I've since lost of a corrected copy of the Gettysburg Address.
As for penmanship, I got D's in elementary school. Not that it's indicative of anything, I've just carried that secret burden around long enough.
818. DanDillon - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
I agree categorically with Message #817. Thank you, arky.
819. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:04 PM PT
Dillon couldn't scorn an illiterate on New Guinea.
But I can agree with Arky in Message #817, especially if instruction in grammar is incidental to exercises in composition.
820. arkymalarky - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
818 and 819 kind of take the edge off of my embarassment over the penmanship confession.
821. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
Well, one concensus seems to emerge; children should be taught grammar in the context of reading and writing. Many schools do not require nearly enough writing of students. My father, a retired teacher/administrator became an evangelist for daily writing in every course after a seminar conducted by an English instructor.
I tried to teach grammar using standard texts for 8th graders in the midwest. We diagrammed sentences etc. They seemed to learn more grammar in correcting and re-writing history reports.
822. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:16 PM PT
What I categorically oppose is the teaching of grammar in the same way adults learn the grammar of a foreign language -- that is, an exercise in parsing and labelling parts of sentences. The whole things is terribly overrated. Rather than be inculcated in the arbitrary rules of "correct" grammar, students would be better off learning to write lucid, coherent, rhetorically forceful sentences and paragraphs. And I don't see that lucidity and coherence entail "correct" grammar at all. For children naturally learn the structure of the language -- through hearing the language spoken and through reading it. How many children really mess up English syntax just because no one taught them to diagram sentences? And why wouldn't pupils learn to use language well simply through instruction in the rest of the curriculum? What children need is not grammar but instruction in how to put on paper an ORGANISED THOUGHT.
(Although I personally believe that the need and value of foreign languages is also greatly exaggerated, especially by linguists, I do acknowledge that foreign-language-learning greatly enhances the knowledge of grammar in one's own language.)
I await that Sapir-Whorfian dunce Dillon's ridicule.
823. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:17 PM PT
Excuse me, the Saussurian-Sapir-Whorfian Dillon.
824. Msivorytower - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
"Your sentence, as it stands, does not seem accurate to me. Perhaps I am wrong"
That would be my position. And while I'm famous for spelling errors, I rarely make the kind of stupid mistake you suggested. Affectation doesn't even fit within the context of what I was saying.
DanDillon
Precisely what kind of tangible remarks are you expecting?
Arky reMessage #817
Precisely. I would go farther and suggest that, in the elementary grades, formal grammar be only addressed briefly, and totally within the context of writing. Grammar seems to be a subject that is most suited to contextual learning (whole language approaches).
At the upper grades, some separate grammar instruction could be helpful, once the skill of writing and composition was cemented, but only then.
Generally I'm of the opinion that independent grammar instruction is almost useless, being the sort of thing that is easily forgotten, if ever learned in the first place.
825. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
An example of what I mean by "rhetorical force"...
Compare the following sentences:
A
"He was strolling along the deck when a wave washed him overboard".
B
"While he was strolling along the deck, a wave washed him overboard".
Both are grammatically correct. However, A, the more frequent form, is rhetorically inept compared to B. A careful and rhetorically emphatic writer opts for B because he realises (consciously or unconsciously) that the more "interesting" materials belong in the independent clause, not the dependent one.
Learning this kind of thing is a lot more important than knowing that "between him and I" is incorrect or that double negatives are "wrong". (The latter -- if social opprobrium is a worry -- usually get weeded out in the process of being well educated -- with or without formal instruction in grammar.)
826. CalGal - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:23 PM PT
"Affectation doesn't even fit within the context of what I was saying."
Well, the problem is that "affection" doesn't either. But no matter.
827. Msivorytower - Jan. 13, 1999 - 3:25 PM PT
But you see, I _meant_ affection!
Jaysus.
828. arkymalarky - Jan. 13, 1999 - 4:14 PM PT
I think a big part of learning the key to the nuances of writing PE illustrates in 825 is reading. Schools are beginning to emphasize writing much more than they used to, and I can see improvement in the composition skills of students in recent years; but the craft still isn't there in most of them. Their writing is fairly simple and they don't show an ability to communicate very complex ideas. Many of them have never really read anything challenging, and what they have read in class has often been spoon fed to them.
829. DanDillon - Jan. 13, 1999 - 5:14 PM PT
Message #823 is the most generous compliment I have ever received.
MsIT,
Whatever that brain of yours can muster.
I'll be posting more tomorrow. Repose is the order of this evening.
830. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 13, 1999 - 5:49 PM PT
I'm not sure how or how much grammar should be taught to native-speaker learners, beyond a vague feeling that a knowledge of grammar is useful in developing writing skills (at the very least, it would seem to be very helpful to be able to label language in order to talk about it).
But I do have one major gripe about the teaching of grammar in American universities. From my rather extensive experience, it appears that grammar isn't even taught in programs preparing teachers of English to speakers of other languages, and this is a major omission. Almost without exception, I have found that teachers with a MA in ESL have little knowledge of English grammar themselves, and are ill-prepared for the ESL classroom (and I have hired hundreds of teachers over the past 20 years).
American ESL programs tend to overlook the teaching of grammar to teachers, either under the mistaken assumption that the teacher candidates already know grammar, or, more ominously, because the teacher trainers themselves do not have a good knowledge of grammar.
Second language learners learn language very differently from native speakers. A native speaker of a language picks up the grammar of a language naturally, and the specific teaching of grammar is not necessary to gain ability in the language. Second language learners, otoh, must be taught the grammar of the target language in order to be able to write a language with any facility (oral communication is not as dependent on accurate grammar). The failure of the notional/functional syllabus, in which set phrases for set situations are taught, with the expectation that the learner will somehow pick up the language, is proof of this.
Solid training in grammar for ESL teachers is definitely needed in American programs. British and Australian teachers I have worked with, who undergo much shorter programs in preparation for teaching, are much better prepared.
831. PincherMartin - Jan. 13, 1999 - 5:52 PM PT
IrvingSnodgrass --
"I have found that teachers with a MA in ESL have little knowledge of English grammar themselves, and are ill-prepared for the ESL classroom (and I have hired hundreds of teachers over the past 20
years)."
What are the best schools offering an MA in ESL?
832. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 13, 1999 - 6:16 PM PT
PincherMartin:
Good question. Some of the best programs I've come across are those at San Francisco State University, Southern Illinois University, and the School for International Training. There are other good programs as well, but I've been particularly impressed with these.
833. PincherMartin - Jan. 13, 1999 - 6:19 PM PT
Irving Snodgrass --
The School for International Training is located where?
834. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 13, 1999 - 6:24 PM PT
PincherMartin:
Brattleboro, Vermont.
835. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 7:11 PM PT
I don't mean to belittle anyone's credentials, but why is a master's degree in ESL necessary? I would think all one needs is fluency in English, plus half a semester's formal instruction in Standard English grammar.
836. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 7:12 PM PT
Or a week.
837. LadyChaos - Jan. 13, 1999 - 7:38 PM PT
And here's the typical high-school creative writing 101 example:
As he strolled along the deck, a towering wave smashed across the starboard side of the ship, flushing him through the scuppers and into the briny deep.
838. PincherMartin - Jan. 13, 1999 - 7:51 PM PT
PseudoErasmus --
Have you taught basic English to adult students? I have. It is extremely frustrating. They asked questions that I had no answers for. Knowing English and some basic grammer is no substitute for the kind of training that prepares you for the problems these students will have for you.
839. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 8:05 PM PT
What sort of questions did they ask?
840. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 8:06 PM PT
Who said anything about "basic grammar"? English grammar could be all learnt by a speaker of English in a week.
841. PincherMartin - Jan. 13, 1999 - 10:28 PM PT
PseudoErasmus -- Message #839
I never used "basic grammer"; I said basic English -- I should have said 'beginning English' I don't remember the questions the students asked me (it was several years ago), but they were astonishingly unanswerable. As the students' English progressed, another problem surfaced. They would combine words and phrases that were awkward, without being wrong (don't ask me for examples, because I don't remember these either). When I would correct them, some would ask why it was wrong. The only answer I could give them was that we don't say it that way.
842. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 10:43 PM PT
"The only answer I could give them was that we don't say it that way."
This was probably a question of idiomatic usage, not of grammar. Again, how is an MA in ESL necessary?
"I never used 'basic grammer'..."
You said: "Knowing English and some basic grammer is no substitute...."
843. Seguine - Jan. 13, 1999 - 10:46 PM PT
PE,
"A
"He was strolling along the deck when a wave washed him overboard".
B
"While he was strolling along the deck, a wave washed him overboard".
Both are grammatically correct. However, A, the more frequent form, is
rhetorically inept compared to B. A careful and rhetorically emphatic
writer opts for B because he realises (consciously or unconsciously)
that the more "interesting" materials belong in the independent clause, not the dependent one."
You cited this example long ago in a previous discussion. I'm glad you brought it up again because I don't understand WHY you believe that A is "rhetorically inept compared to B". The best placement of "interesting" material depends in equal parts on the nature of the material and on what the writer or speaker intends.
The phrase "While he was strolling along the deck..." signals to the reader that an event is about to be disclosed. What might it be?
1) "While he was strolling along the deck, a thought occurred."
2) "While he was strolling along the deck, a reptilian animal raised its fifteen-meter long neck out of the stillness of Loch Ness and turned to look at him."
In (1), the event is not especially dramatic and so there is nothing lost by foreshadowing it with the word "while". In (2), the emergence of Nessie counts as something unexpected. Why, unless your intent was to downplay the fact that your stroller had just come face to face with a mythological beast, would you want to ruin the suspense with "while"? Compare:
1a) "He was strolling along the deck when a thought occurred."
This sounds a little precious or stilted, the speech pattern of an English schoolboy. A tone occasionally put to good use by someone like Evelyn Waugh.
2a) "He was strolling along the deck when a reptilian animal raised
844. Seguine - Jan. 13, 1999 - 10:49 PM PT
2a) "He was strolling along the deck when a reptilian animal raised its fifteen-meter long neck out of the stillness of Loch Ness and turned to look at him."
This is better use of the element of surprise.
Rhetorical devices are most apt when they are tailored to rhetorical purposes.
845. PincherMartin - Jan. 13, 1999 - 10:58 PM PT
To the use of Basic Grammer -- Mea Culpa
An MA in ESL is not necessary, but your preparation -- fluency and half a semester of formal instruction in English grammer is not sufficient.
846. CalGal - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:06 PM PT
Seguine,
Or, as I thought when I read Pseudo's original post:
"But what if you're Douglas Adams???????"
847. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:10 PM PT
Seguine (Message #843)
"The best placement of 'interesting' material depends in equal parts on the nature of the material and on what the writer or speaker intends."
Oh, yes, I agree. But I wanted to make a particular point -- that sometimes a writer must submit to the constraints he is handed.
"Rhetorical devices are most apt when they are tailored to rhetorical purposes."
No shit. That was rather my point.
In my example, B is better than A because B serves no rhetorical purpose whatsoever. GIVEN the constraints of the meaning, B is optimal.
"In (2), the emergence of Nessie counts as something unexpected. Why, unless your intent was to downplay the fact that your stroller had just come face to face with a mythological beast, would you want to ruin the suspense with 'while'?"
It doesn't.
848. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:26 PM PT
Seguine: I was trying to illustrate how to make the most rhetorically forceful sentence from a fixed set of words. If you wanted to argue my point, then you should have told me why you thought A might be preferable to B.
But you missed the point and varied the set of words, thereby ignoring my purpose and arguing yours.
849. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:34 PM PT
Message #845
What is sufficient?
850. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:44 PM PT
#1
The general rule of thumb illustrated by Message #825 is that you want to keep as much as possible the most dramatic action of the sentence in the independent clause. In the case of the sentence in #825, being washed overboard is intrinsically more dramatic than strolling along the deck. So this is the constraint a writer must work with. Call it rhetorical optimisation.
#2
Now, many times, a writer can indeed dictate what is the "most dramatic action" by his CHOICE of what to put in which clause of a sentence. "As Seguine gazed upon Godzilla with love, Mothra was reducing Tokyo to dust" is obviously quite different from "As Mothra was reducing Tokyo to dust, Seguine gazed upon Godzilla with love".
851. PincherMartin - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:47 PM PT
I'm not sure, perhaps just experience. I didn't think teaching English to foreigners was especially difficult, but it certainly was helpful to those few who decided to make their career in the field to have some training, and to have developed a routine for introducing the material. Someone with an MA in ESL would probably have that training and rountine Your description of what is necessary to teach English to speakers of other languages describes the qualifications of most Americans out there teaching English to foreigners from Japan to North Africa, and their students are not getting their money's worth.
852. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 13, 1999 - 11:51 PM PT
#2 (continued)
Since neither action is intrinsically more dramatic than the other, it's up to the writer's intention how the actions are organised. This I believe is what Seguine was trying to illustrate in #843, in a lamentably Resonance-like way.
But a writer doesn't always have the luxury of choice. He must often work with meanings or actions which themselves dictate the rhetoric of a sentence. Such is the case with #1.
853. chloel - Jan. 14, 1999 - 12:33 AM PT
Why not "He was washed overboard while strolling along the deck."? Is the comma a burden the writer must pass on?
Can one fit usable ESL into BNF?
854. chloel - Jan. 14, 1999 - 12:36 AM PT
Never mind my mention of the comma. The inversions puzzle me, though.
855. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 5:02 AM PT
PincherMartin,
The Monterey Institute in California also has an excellent MA in ESL program. Nice setting, too.
pseudoerasmus,
Normally, I wouldn't address you directly as I am now doing, but your posts in this new thread mandate my taking action. For they are born of such alarming ignorance and as they possess no redeeming value whatsoever, I am going to have ask you to quit this thread immediately. I beg you. Do not comment--that is all your your words amount to--any further on the topic of grammar in the classroom. I (and surely others well-versed on the issue) am sick by your idiocy. It is sad, truly, your bungling. Please desist.
856. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 5:23 AM PT
Let me begin with this statement: grammar is a legitimate subject matter for the clasroom. Studying grammar is indeed an intellectually valid academic pursuit, nevermind its having practical applications or not. (After all, if direct practical applications were the sole consideration in choosing subjects in the curriculum, the only classes offered would be vocational ed., home ec., and driver ed.) Clearly, as has been mentioned earlier, students need to be able to look at their own writing objectively, to evaluate it at arm's length, so that they can see how it will appear to their audience. A proficiency in grammar is the way to instill such an ability.
Now, the question of how to go about instilling it confronts us here. Traditional grammar--what we all learned in our elementary classrooms--certainly is not the answer. The very fact that all standard grammar textbooks repeat the same material at each grade level tacitly acknowledges that no one really expects students to grasp traditional grammar. And a reliance upon one's own intuitive knowledge of the subject alone is not the answer either. (Stop anybody at some point today and ask them to explain why "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country" is so effective. 10 to 1 they cite something abstract related to the speaker's charisma versus anything concrete related to grammar or, god forbid, chiasmus.) So what, then, is the answer?
We need to rethink our entire approach to the teaching or grammar in the classroom. Alas, this thread.
857. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 5:50 AM PT
Message #856)
Thank you, Dillon, for that agglomeration bromides ("We need to rethink our entire approach to the teaching or grammar in the classroom.")
"Clearly, as has been mentioned earlier, students need to be able to look at their own writing objectively, to evaluate it at arm's length, so that they can see how it will appear to their audience. A proficiency in grammar is the way to instill such an ability."
This point is far from obvious. Please elaborate. As I asked earlier, how does it undermine rhetoric to make the grammatical error of "between he and I"?
"Stop anybody at some point today and ask them to explain why 'Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country' is so effective. 10 to 1 they cite something abstract related to the speaker's charisma versus anything concrete related to grammar or, god forbid, chiasmus."
Understanding why JFK's remark is effective has little to do with grammar and everything to do with rhetoric. By the way, what is "anything related to chiasmus"? One need not know the word "chiasmus" to understand that the mirror inversion of terms is what makes the JFK remark "work".
858. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 5:50 AM PT
agglomeration OF bromides
859. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:04 AM PT
Everyone seems to take it for granted that English grammar ought to be taught even to native speakers of English. This is the conventional view, widely shared and unquestioned. Could someone explain why instruction for grammar is necessary (for those not becoming teachers of ESL)? I've never understood it.
I am not counting as "instruction in grammar" what the incidental learning of grammar in a composition or foreign language class.
By the way, I have never had a day of instruction in English grammar.
860. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:05 AM PT
...why instruction IN grammar is necessary...
861. CharlieL - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:08 AM PT
Is Message #858 a description of Message #857 or a correction of something contained in it?
862. CharlieL - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:13 AM PT
But what is rhetoric if not the ability to use the grammatical building blocks in a creative way knowing that such a construction will be effective to the listener?
Would Kennedy and/or his speechwriter have known that "Ask not what your country..." is as effective a phrase as it is without knowing how to manipulate the grammar of the question? And would they have manipulated the grammar if they didn't know about the "proper" grammar to begin with?
863. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:23 AM PT
CharliL (Message #862)
"Would Kennedy and/or his speechwriter have known that 'Ask not what your country...' is as effective a phrase as it is without knowing how to manipulate the grammar of the question? And would they have manipulated the grammar if they didn't know about the 'proper' grammar to begin with?"
Yes, and yes. Uneducated speakers display rhetoric all the time. Hell, graffitti in public lavatories deploy rhetoric.
Did Abraham Lincoln receive instruction in the parts of speech? I'm pretty sure Shakespeare didn't (other than those of Latin). The formal instruction in grammar of one's own language is a rather recent phenomenon.
"But what is rhetoric if not the ability to use the grammatical building blocks in a creative way knowing that such a construction will be effective to the listener?"
This sounds like a reasonable (rhetorical) question until one ponders why knowing that "between he and I" is incorrect is particularly important in order to be rhetorically effective. I daresay that the grammar that is informally and incidentally picked up in the course of normal education -- history, literature, science and even mathematics -- is really quite sufficient.
I propose that the insistence by the likes of Dillon -- linguistic descriptivists -- on the instruction of grammar is an instance of cognitive dissonance.
864. stostosto - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:23 AM PT
Charlie
which is most effective:
1) He was looking after Bill Clinton's instant tea while patiently observing Bill telling about great adventures;
or:
2) He was patiently observing Bill telling about great adventures while looking after Bill Clinton's instant tea.
I, for one, am still laughing out loud like a baby child in the process of being tickled and grinned at.
865. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:25 AM PT
Message #862 took the words right out of my mouth.
Yes. Rhetoric, in essence, *is* grammar.
866. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:25 AM PT
By the way, although I'm sure linguists may nitpick with assertion, I do not recognise that grammar is "manipulated" in the inversion, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country".
867. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:27 AM PT
Message #865
That's bullshit.
I ask again:
Why is knowing that "between he and I" is an error contribute to rhetorical ability???
868. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:29 AM PT
Just why is the knowledge of, say, the parts of speech necessary to produce the rhetoric of JFK's command?
869. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:30 AM PT
Message #867
ERRATA
HOW DOES knowing that "between he and I" is a grammatical error contribute to rhetorical ability???
Hmm. Maybe I should have been instructed in grammar.
870. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 7:10 AM PT
I might as well jump in right in medias res.
By borrowing methodologies from structural linguistics we will create a slightly less traditional traditional grammar, as it were. This revised traditional grammar freely incorporates grammatical concepts and uses techniques from structural and transformational grammar in order to help students make sense of their intuitive knowledge of English. There are a few items associated with the verb that fit into our revised traditional grammar which would be helpful for students to become familiar with.
-a thorough description of phrasal verbs. As I mentioned ealier in Esoterica, that little "on" or "in" or "through" that follows certain verbs is not a preposition (as it would be identified by traditional grammarians) but a particle that radiaclly changes the meaning of the verb. There are thousands of phrasal verbs in English. To ignore them is to ignore a vast portion of the word stock most commonly used.
-the verb is the heart of the sentence. No English sentence can be formed without a verb, and the only possible one-word sentence in English is formed with the imperative mood of a verb. The verb has grammatical and semantic links to both the subject and the complement.
-part of speech identification is not an end in itself. It is a means to a larger goal. A student's knowledge of what a noun or a verb is is completely useless unless he understands how a sentence is built. And this understanding is impossible without first gathering constituent information from a whole sentnece. After all, a part of speech is determined by the word's function is sentence, not by whether it is a person, place, or thing. Ineed, "automobile" is a thing, but in "automobile show" it functions as an adjective.
871. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 7:19 AM PT
I don't at all expect to catalog all of the improvements that either structural linguistics or transformational grammar have made upon the teaching of grammar in our classrooms. But by posting what I do, I hope to demonstrate how teaching revised traditional grammar is most definitely a way of helping students to write better.
872. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 7:35 AM PT
Research into mechanical error in writing is still in its infancy, but it has already revolutionized grammarians' thinking about what causes the mistakes in students' writing. The landmark study of writing error is Mina P. Shaughnessy's *Errors and Expectations* (1977). Mina's book treats the severe writing problems of a group of students at the City University of NY. Based on an error analysis of 4,000 placement exams, the book is remarkable for both its delving into the causes of writing error and its proposed solutions to the same.
In brief, Mina's book comes up with the following ideas about the causes of error in writing:
1) Beginning or basic writers, even though they are native speakers of English, do not possess the special forms and conventions of written English. These forms and conventions are dramatically different from those of spoken language and therefore must be treated as componenets of a different "dialect." Given that, beginning and basic writers demonstrate some elements of the behavior of learners of a second language.
2) Writing erors made by native English speakers are not random, but are the reslut of the writer's command of the underlying structure of his language--on a morphological and syntactical level.
3) Writing errors are a necessary part of learning.
873. CharlieL - Jan. 14, 1999 - 7:36 AM PT
"This sounds like a reasonable (rhetorical) question until one ponders why knowing that 'between he and I' is incorrect is particularly important in order to be rhetorically effective."
Because if the listeners (if the above is used in a speech meant to be persuasive in some way) know that the grammar is wrong, they tend to be less likely to be swayed by an argument presented in that fashion. If a politician says in a speech, "If you and me join together, we can correct what is wrong with America," I can be pretty sure that Education won't be one of the priorities of the politician.
874. BonJour - Jan. 14, 1999 - 11:12 AM PT
Bon post, CharlieL.
875. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 11:30 AM PT
1) I wrote, in Message #865, "Rhetoric, in essence, *is* grammar."
2) Fucko Bazoo responded, in Message #867, with "That's bullshit."
3) But prior to Fucko Bazoo's thoughtless and hasty response, he wrote, in Message #825,
"An example of what I mean by 'rhetorical force'...
Compare the following sentences:
A
'He was strolling along the deck when a wave washed him overboard'. [sic]
B
'While he was strolling along the deck, a wave washed him overboard'. [sic]
Both are grammatically correct. However, A, the more frequent form, is rhetorically inept compared to B. A careful and rhetorically emphatic writer opts for B because he realises that the more 'interesting' materials belong in the independent clause, not the dependent one."
4) Fucko Bazoo followed that up with Message #850 wherein he wrote,
"The general rule of thumb illustrated by Message #825 is that you want to keep as much as possible the most dramatic action of the sentence in the independent clause. In the case of the sentence in #825, being washed overboard is intrinsically more dramatic than strolling along the deck. So this is the constraint a writer must work with. Call it rhetorical optimisation."
Clearly, Fucko Bazoo is too confused to participate, let alone debate.
876. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
Dillon, what precisely is the point of Message #875? Nothing I said in Message #825 & Message #840 makes a point about grammar.
But if you are going to simply redefine "grammar" to include "rhetoric", by all means teach the rhetoric part of grammar. But my concession would be solely due to the redefinition. Are you trying to start a tradition whereby you simply define your conclusion to be true? (Cf. your nonsense point about double prepositions in the Esosterica thread.)
Rhetoric is not grammar.
877. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 11:42 AM PT
Message #873
That argument seems strained to me.
"If a politician says in a speech, 'If you and me join together, we can correct what is wrong with America,' I can be pretty sure that Education won't be one of the priorities of the politician."
But that's only because you want grammar (in the traditional sense) taught. The question is why it ought to be taught at all.
878. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
I ask for the nth time the question Dillon seems unable to answer:
How does the knowledge that "between he and I" is grammatically incorrect serve to improve one's rhetorical command of the language?
Dillon, in hushed tones of grand revelation, imparts to us that "rhetoric in essence, *is* grammar". But if this rather solemn assertion were so true, and he complacently assumes it to be true, then he should be able to explain why. Yes he hasn't.
879. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
"The question is why [grammar] ought to be taught."
No, the question is *how* it ought to be taught.
I do not answer your questions, Fucko Bazoo. They are, at best, irrelevant.
880. PincherMartin - Jan. 14, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
PseudoErasmus -- Message #863
"Did Abraham Lincoln receive instruction in the parts of speech? I'm pretty sure Shakespeare didn't (other than those of Latin). The formal instruction in grammar of one's own language is a rather recent phenomenon."
Here is a quote from Edmund Wilson's _Patriotic Gore_:
"Lincoln's editor, Mr. Roy P. Basler, in a study of Lincoln's style prefixed to a volume of selections from his writings, explains that the literary education of Lincoln was a good deal more thorough than used to be thought. 'A careful examination,' he says, of the books of elocution and grammer 'which Lincoln studied both in and out of school will not impress anyone with Lincoln's poverty of opportunity for the study of grammer and rhetoric. It is safe to say that few children learn as much through twelve years of formal schooling in these two subjects as one finds in the several textbooks which Lincoln is supposed to have studied.' For it is true that the schoolbooks of the early nineteenth century taught not only the mechanics of writing -- that is, of grammer and syntax -- but also the art of rhetoric -- that is, of used to be called 'harmonious numbers' and of dramatic and oratorical effectiveness."
And does anyone know what sort of education Shakespeare had? But what does it matter. Certainly educational policy towards the masses should not be based on a student with Lincoln or Shakespeare-like capabilities.
881. Seguine - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Dillon is a hysteric. Nevertheless:
PE: "...I wanted to make a particular point -- that sometimes a writer must submit to the constraints he is handed."
In your example, no constraints were given. Your point was opaque because you gave no context for a reader to discern on what basis your A and B should be compared. You simply pronounced that one was rhetorically apt and the other was not because the "interesting materials" belong in the independent clause. And I pointed out that they do not "belong" anywhere, unless grammar and specific rhetorical purposes dictate that they do.
Seg: "Rhetorical devices are most apt when they are tailored to rhetorical purposes."
PE: "No shit. That was rather my point."
But you didn't make it. You instead resorted to an impossibly vague and yet conclusive-sounding assertion about what is "rhetorically inept".
A statement that does serve some rhetorical purpose, which is clearly true of your example A, cannot possibly be "rhetorically inept", unless it is employed in a context that makes it so. Similarly, a statement that is inherently less rhetorically potent (if that is possible) is not apt for all rhetorical intentions.
882. Seguine - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT
PE: "In my example, B is better than A because B serves no rhetorical purpose whatsoever. GIVEN the constraints of the meaning, B is optimal."
The "constraints of the meaning"? Where *rhetoric* is concerned, meaning is *achieved* by submitting to or violating constraints of *expectation*--which your original comment addressed, but drew a flawed conclusion from. (And anyway, the above statement betrays a shocking penury of imagination, one I might expect to encounter in someone like Resonance, rather than in my esteemed commentator on the waste of time that is spent teaching children the parts of speech.) Here, again, are your examples (since you fail to recognize that mine simply inflated the dramatic content of your own):
A
"He was strolling along the deck when a wave washed him overboard".
B
"While he was strolling along the deck, a wave washed him overboard".
883. Seguine - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
A is not composed of an identifiable independent and dependent clause, but is actually two independent, complete clauses joined by the conjunction "when". Out of context, there is no way to know which part of the sentence contains the more important information. This does not, however, make A "rhetorically inept".
I cannot read A, in fact, without imagining it being delivered onstage by a very droll Steve Martin imposturing someone wrongly convinced of his own erudition.
1) "He was strolling along the deck when a wave washed him overboard. 'Oh God,' he screamed, 'My $800 shoes!'"
On the other hand, A could signal that the reader is in the midst of a serious narrative, a denoument, perhaps, with a conclusive emphasis as yet to occur.
2) "He was strolling along the deck when a wave washed him overboard. He struggled to maintain conciousness for several seconds before succumbing to an undertow that pulled him under the body of the ship. His corpse was never found.
But what about B, which you claim "serves no rhetorical purpose whatsoever"?
"While he was strolling along the deck, a wave washed him overboard."
The rhetorical purpose may seem neutral, the importance of the material in each clause may seem clear, but again, it depends on context:
3) "While he was strolling along the deck, a wave washed him overboard. At the same moment, the boat tipped roughly to starboard, and his wife, who had spent the entire cruise admonishing him against leaving their cabin in case he should accidentally be thrown overboard and devoured by sharks, was hurled against a coat hook and killed instantly."
4)
"Is it true, Inspector, that while swimming at the shore he was swept into the Gulf by the undertow of a ferocious wave?"
"No, no, my dear. He had gone on a boat cruise. While he was strolling along the deck, a wave washed him over
884. Seguine - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
Seg: "...the emergence of Nessie counts as something unexpected. Why, unless your intent was to downplay the fact that your stroller had just come face to face with a mythological beast, would you want to ruin the suspense with 'while'?"
PE: "It doesn't.
Veyismir.
You're wrong. The problem is your placement of the dependent clause, with its subordinate conjunction "while", at the front of the sentence. Unlike that construction, no suspense is lost in the following, for example, because none is suggested:
"A wave washed him overboard while he was strolling along the deck."
This is similar in effect to "He was strolling along the deck when...", in which the reader has no particular reason to anticipate the conjunction "when", and so no *event* is foretold. The conjunction coming up might just as easily be "and" or "which". ("He was strolling along the deck and feeling completely at peace...", ""He was strolling along the deck, which was painted red...")
PE "The general rule of thumb illustrated by Message #825 is that you want to keep as much as possible the most dramatic action of the sentence in the independent clause."
There is no such general rule. What you "want" depends entirely on your greater objectives. You're either repeating an archaic "general rule" or else attempting to make a too-broad rhetorical prescrition out of the generalization that in certain kinds of speech or writing, the more important material will be found in the independent clause.
885. Seguine - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
PE: "As Seguine gazed upon Godzilla with love, Mothra was reducing Tokyo to dust" is obviously quite different from "As Mothra was reducing Tokyo to dust, Seguine gazed upon Godzilla with love".
Yeah, but semantically different only because the dependent and independent clauses are *reversed*.
"As PE gazed upon Toonces with love, Seguine was reducing the Nation of Islam to dust."
(Seguine, hoping to free her helpless friend PE from the power of the nefarious pantheist Toonces, was attempting to distract her by committing genocide on some of Toonces favorite victims.)
"As Seguine was reducing the Nation of Islam to dust, PE gazed upon Toonces with love."
(PE, enthralled by Toonces' power to manipulate Seguine via an evil spell into decimating the world's Muslim population, had lost his heart to the Native American sorceress.)
886. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
"Yeah, but semantically different only because the dependent and independent clauses are *reversed*."
No kidding. Wasn't that the point?
887. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
"A is not composed of an identifiable independent and dependent clause, but is actually two independent, complete clauses joined by the conjunction 'when'."
What drivel. The definition of a subordinate or dependent clause is that it contains a conjunction like "when" or "while".
888. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
Seguine,
Thanks. I needed the laugh.
889. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
But I haven't the stomach to wade through your dense, "resonant" screeds. I, like Loar, must suffer from what you called in him an "extreme neurosis sometimes characterized by a peculiar sort of mental rigidity".
890. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
Seguine,
Seems to me that much of your linguistic criticisms are based in some sort of abstruse speech-theory school of thought such as the one M. Bakhtin never founded. Why is it that Fucko Bazoo never objects to this ideological penchant of yours? Oh, nevermind. You are a linguist, correct?
891. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
Message #881 & #882
Your verbiage notwithstanding, constraints WERE given: the clause about strolling and the clause about being washed overboard. The latter, as stated, is the main action which the writer really has little control over. That's the constraint.
Message #884
I think my penury of imagination is counterpointed by your hypertrophy. You overread.
As for the general rule, sigh. It is a general rule which I infer from the best practise of writing, not some received tradition. It's an empirical rule.
"You're...attempting to make a too-broad rhetorical prescrition out of the generalization that in certain kinds of speech or writing, the more important material will be found in the independent clause."
Yet it is generally true.
892. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
"What you 'want' depends entirely on your greater objectives."
Sometimes one's cannot determine one's own objectives. See Message #850 and Message #851.
All the same, I follow my own prescriptions, and I think I do just fine.
Message #890
Pure hallucination.
893. DanDillon - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:47 PM PT
Fucko Bazoo,
The more important material in a rhetorically strong sentence appears in the independent clause, yes? Now how can you deny that grammar is not the warp and woof of rhetoric?
894. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 2:58 PM PT
You can learn what's an independent clause, what's a subordinate clause, in about 20 seconds.
895. chloel - Jan. 14, 1999 - 3:03 PM PT
on Shakespeare's education:
"immense amounts of something called Rhetoric, which was a combination of literature, composition and creative writing (essentially, they studied great writers by memorizing long sections and by writing original attempts in the style of the writer being studied). Somewhere along the way, probably on his own once he went to London, he learned French and possibly Italian."
or another phrasing:
"He must have attended the King's New Grammar School at Stratford, which was a good school, until he was fourteen or fifteen. The course of study was in those days, even in what we call the grades, well ballasted with Latin authors, such as Vergil, Ovid, and Cicero; and the "making of Latines" was begun early. For all Jonson's remark, Shakespeare had a better acquaintance with Latin than the average highschool or college graduate of our day, and there is evidence that he read many Latin authors, especially Ovid, with enjoyment.
Moreover, school in those days was heroic business. It usually opened at six o'clock in the morning and held until five in the afternoon."
(There is said to be little or no record of Shakespeare's education; but also none of Jonson's, and it would be odder yet to assume Jonson had none.)
896. chloel - Jan. 14, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
Grammar needs to be learned, but that doesn't mean it has to be taught. (Perhaps it does, I don't know, but I can't find any evidence on way or the other in DanDillon or PE's posts. Statistics, anyone?)
Anyone who thinks 893 is always true should go back to recitation.
897. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 3:20 PM PT
It is generally true.
898. CoralReef - Jan. 14, 1999 - 3:21 PM PT
Message #893
DanDi, but you see PE proved his point very cleverly. He gave an example of choosing which sentence is best purely by the rules of grammar knowing someone would show, as Seguine showed, that this choice wasn't necessarily correct depending on the rhetorical goals of the writer. Thus grammar and rhetorical skill are not identical, as per his original point.
899. CoralReef - Jan. 14, 1999 - 3:26 PM PT
Message #867
'I ask again:
Why is knowing that "between he and I" is an error contribute to rhetorical ability???'
Because people will think you're an idiot if you say "between he and I" and your audience thinking you're an idiot will undermine the rhetorical power of your writing.
900. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 14, 1999 - 3:32 PM PT
Hahahaha. Yes, I acknowledge your point in Message #899. But if you've ever read business correspondence, or heard the parlance of modern American businessmen, there are so many grammatical vulgarities & solecisms that only the snob could wince today. All the same, although "between he and I" itself may not be very common, equivalent statements such as "Bob sent my wife and I a Christmas card" or "between you and he" are quite common even among respectable people.