Grand Finale

I thought the best way to explain all this was to share my final Autogrammography with you all who care to read it:

Before this class, Approaches to Grammar, I was against grammar in every way, shape, and form. With my prior experiences, including the infamous Wall of Shame I encountered in my freshman year of high school, it would be a large understatement to say I didn’t like grammar. This Wall of Shame left me in a maze of confusion and embarrassment. My teacher, Mrs. Thionnett, whom I have great respect for, took grammar to the extreme and had students write their mistakes in grammar on the wall of her classroom. I soon found myself making mistakes on purpose in an attempt to show Mrs. Thionnett the error of her ways, but my mockery of grammar was futile.
Today this seems like a predestined situation to inform me the necessity of grammar instruction. No, I don’t wake up on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, dying to go to class and diagram sentences, or point out appositives, but I have found a new respect for grammar and its use. It was the realization that I need grammar to succeed in life, whether it is professional or academic that helped change my mind. Before, with my immature antics of mocking grammar, I wasn’t able to see the uses it had stored for me in the future. What use am I talking about? Grammar is more than a word, a noun to be specific. A noun, a thing that is often misunderstood – as David Mulroy points out in his book, The War Against Grammar, something as important to our nation as the Declaration of Independence is not completely understood without the use of grammar in one form or another (Mulroy 17-19). And it is the declining understanding of grammar that is leaving students without the power to fully understand difficult texts. Now, if grammar were to be taught in the fashion it used to be, I’m speaking of the old fashioned grammar school, knuckles being cracked by rulers type of instruction; I don’t know if students would actually benefit from this anymore than they do now, but a deep understanding of grammar and the philosophy of grammar allows one to come to terms with this negative stigma that comes along with this loaded noun – grammar.
This semester I participated in the Oklahoma Research Day. Being a requirement for the capstone course in the English department, I willingly made a poster out of my research concerning the poetry of World War I. For this Research Day, I was positioned to setup my poster next to the graduate students of Northeastern State University of Oklahoma. These students, being the substantial graduate students they are, were not required to defend or present any of their work. The thesis advisor for all eight of these students stood next to the first chapter of her student’s theses. This display of academia at its best left me disappointed. Not only for the fact that graduate students were not present for their work, but for the tenacity of the advisor to confront me about the grammar of my research poster. For the sake of this paper, she will be named Prescriptivist Mary Sue, PMS for short. Ms. PMS was more than willing to inform me about the nature of an appositive. Seeing as I was only just learning about appositives in Approaches to Grammar, I could not feel responsible for incorrectly using an appositive. At first, I was shocked that a professor would go out of her way to point out a mistake on my work when her own students who are supposed to be at a higher level of education than me were not even present. Ms. PMS brought back memories of the wall of shame. This time the wall was full of my own work, my mistakes, more like transgressions in the eyes of PMS. Looking back on the grammatical mistake that only an English major would notice, I feel that the error was sophomoric on my part. Even though I used the appositive incorrectly in this case, I had used it correctly many times before, leaving me to ponder on a few of the trends within this world of grammar. After long thought and being upset over the matter I realized how the different conventions of Standard Written English (SWE), grammar, and grammatical terms differ, proving to me that Ms. PMS’s prescriptivism was merely an act snobbery, caused by her knowledge and pledge to the convention of Standard Written English and my lack of awareness with grammatical terms.
Ms. PMS did not have a firm grip on reality, much less grammar. She told me, and others that came to look at my poster there were problems with the grammar, but I have learned grammar is nothing more than the structure that allows any language or dialect to have meaning. It was not my grammar that was incorrect on the poster; the meaning I wanted was still produced. I was uninformed when it came to the grammatical terms, which are solely names for the different parts of grammar and its structures. Ms. PMS was drunk with the conventions of Standard Written English – the specific rules used in American English that allow the prescriptivists to prove their point about appositives and other menial matters.
After my encounter with the second Wall of Shame, my personal views of grammar have made a dramatic shift. Rather than loathing every aspect of grammar, I find myself at peace, knowing that grammar can be used for good and evil and this outlook gives me hope for my career and future students. I know my students will never have to uphold a Wall of Shame, or be emasculated for failure to understand a convention of Standard Written English. I will bring grammar into the class in a non-threatening way, focusing on the writing of the students rather than their grammar. With the enhancement of student writing comes a better understanding of grammar in every sense. I don’t plan to break out a grammar book in a class unless the students ask for help in a certain area, but if I am forced to take on a grammar course there is no doubt that I will start with a philosophical approach, allowing students to comprehend the nature of grammar before they are flooded with sentence diagramming. In David Foster Wallace’s article, “Tense Present,” he takes on the prescriptivists, reviews a new dictionary, and provides insight into the world of grammar. Most importantly, he offers a genuine view of student’s views on grammar, “The reality is that an average U.S. student is going to go to the trouble of mastering the difficult conventions of SWE only if he sees SWE’s relevant Group or Discourse Community as one he’d like to be a part of” (Wallace 53). As Wallace points out, most teachers that students run into with grammar have a memory much like mine, making them want to dodge every aspect of grammar (53). The thought of being the centerpiece for SWE to my students’ forces me to realize I have the ability to make or break what a student thinks about grammar. My personal views will be reflected in a welcoming light, allowing students to see that grammar is not merely a tool for snoots to gain unprecedented power. This is the approach that will lead students into a desire to study the structure of languages. Mulroy argues that grammar is declining, but I believe it is because of the common approach (43-50). If teachers would take a personable approach to grammar, students will not be intimidated. In return, our culture can come back into a desire to study grammar without being a part of the elite group of snoots.
My Autogrammograpy has changed in some ways. I understand the use of studying grammar. I can differentiate the different forms of grammar people refer to. I feel the need to study grammar slightly more. But, for the most part, since completing Approaches to Grammar, I have found a new respect for grammar, realizing that a well rounded understanding of the conventions of Standard Written English enables me to correspond with groups I never would have been able to before.

Liberal Arts - Life Skills or Not?

Following the prompt - What do you find appeals to you more: classes that help students gain teh practical skills taht will best serve them in the labor market or those that address critical questions of universal concern about values, language, and culture? What role do you think grammar classes should play in addressing either of these concerns?

I think it would be hypocritical of me to agree that classes should only serve students in preparing them for the labor market. Not only do I despise classes like these, but I find them to be degrading to our society, not allowing students to broaden their minds and bring forth their useful skills to society. I think by addressing universal concerns, the culture, language, etc., students will learn critical skills, allowing them to be a well rounded individual, helping their society. It is the values that a students learns in their liberal arts classes that allows them to understand society and how to use their already inate practical skills to function in society.

Using grammar in the class can enhance these skills, allowing students to function on a more professional leve, but I don't think it is the main concern of the class that is trying to get students to think criticall about universal themes.

SWE and the classroom

I think that SWE grammar should be taught in the classroom, but not in the traditional form. As a high school student, the last thing I wanted to learn about was grammar. Remembering this, I would not want to put my students through he same torture. So, when and if I teach grammar, it will be on a different basis. First of all, I think the students need to have a particular need or interest for the grammar instruction to be successful. For example, if my students were showing in their writing that they did not understand some form of punctuation, I would take some time to address this, but not weeks on end. Also, if a student had a specific question about grammar I would be more than happy to assist them.

It would be going against my own beliefs to teach a structured grammar course to high school students. I don't think they get everything out of the instruction that they could because they are not interested in it. So, if I teach, I will focus on dragging (forcing) students into a love of the English language. Then if they have enough sense to become English majors, Dr. Benton can straighten out all the bad habits I taught them.

Pinker Ain't No Puss

Steven Pinker reveals his thoughts on grammar in academia in the article, "Grammar Puss." Throughout the article, Pinker gives examples of how grammar is misused in the midst of all the unexplained rules we try to follow in SWE. On page 12 of Pinker's article, he makes two comments that stand out, seeing that he is writing an article about grammar, "Many prescriptive rules are just plain dumb and should be deleted from the usage handbooks" and "As for slang, I'm all for it! I don't know how I ever did without [to flame] (protest self-righteously), [to dis] (express disrespect for), and [to blow off] (dismiss an obligation), and there are thousands of now-unexceptionable English words like [clever], [fun], [sham], [banter], [mob], and [stingy] that began life as slang."
Not only do I agree with Pinker, but I am glad to see an article from academia that criticizes those who are stuck in the rules of grammar. I believe in order to stay current with grammar, we must be able to evolve with the language around us.

Interview with Dr. Grasso

When I asked Dr. Grasso if "literal meaning has fallen into disfavor in academia" as stated in Mulroy's text, he replied that it has not. He stated that, "there is a trend among some professors to fear that this 'new generation of learners' are too visual to confront the text. So to reach them, the ideology is to focus much less on the word and try to engage them in media instead." But, literal meaning is still taught and he believes that most professors do promote the literal meaning of a text. Grasso believes that even though aspects can be added to a text, such as biography, culture, etc., the words will always remain the main focus. The word is the most authentic part of a work, the heart. Authors decide on each and every word for a reason. With this in mind, Grasso said that "the importance of literal meaning is empowerment," meaning that once you have the literal meaning of a text, you don't have to assume, you can back up your thoughts.

Taking the focus more towards grammar instruction, Grasso said that "Grammar instruction is not declining in academia." He made the remark pertaining to grammar and literature that "I still don't think it's in decline, just that there is a trend--and trends go away."

If My Boss Only Knew

Sorry, but I'm going to write this post under what is labeled as the "Sarcastic, pretentious, agressive writer" under category 2.5 in Larry Beason's article, "Ethos and Error: How Business People React to Errors" (by the way, did I use the quotation marks correctly in this sentence? Because I know that quotation mark usage is a huge concern and I would not want to ruin my ethos with any of my few readers).

Beason's article gives insight into how competetive the business world is in his "attempts to define major variables associated with negative reactions to errors appearing in business writing" (34). Even though this article proceeds to state the obvious to any writer and the effect of error, (wait, was that supposed to be affect?) many important observations are made to influence those who plan or are already involved in professional writing. The corporate world can be demanding, and for those who have not experienced this type of work environment, this article can seem harsh. But, with Beason's many categories of how errors affect (was this one supposed to be effect?) the reader, one can learn how their own errors are perceived. Beason comes to the conclusion that error avoidance should have a presence in classes, but not overpower the class (60). Even though I am not an advocate of the fast-paced, time is money, pressure situations, students should receive a dose of reality and undrstand how their writing is perceived by those with a watchful eye in the corporate world. It is the responsibility of teachers to help their students succeed, and helping them understand what is going to be expected of them after college is no exception.

So, forgive all my little side thoughts of (is this the right word?). This is just my way of being the sarcastic 2.5 writer, proving the point that it is difficult to write if you are constantly thinking of what you are doing is grammatically correct.

Snoots Anonymous

David Foster Wallace’s article, “Tense Present” takes a look at Bryan A. Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern American Usage (ADMAU). Although Wallace pokes fun at Garner, realizing how much of a word-nerd this guy is, he admits that the ADMAU is good work. Through all his digressions, rants, and raves, Wallace comes to a clear point that he makes with one of his own students. Standard Written English will always prevail. SWE is what is accepted in the professional world, and if you want to succeed in the world, use SWE.

Wallace applauds Garner on his use of rhetoric throughout the ADMAU, pointing out that the use of SWE equals authority. He uses the word authority often in the article. This made me realize how much people take grammar into consideration when it comes to being an authority figure. I do believe that grammar and usage should be used properly for the occasion, but I also believe that we should move along with the trends, using grammar, usage, slang, whatever you want to call it, as a rhetorical tool. Wallace presents this in "Tense Present;" and if anything, he displays a balance between SWE and slang that proves to us all how much of a rhetorical asset this can be.