Grammar...I Love it Every Day

Our discussions of grammar and correctness last week and this week have given me much to think about. In truth, I was yet unsure of how I come down on the idea of grammar. In keeping with my own "theory of writing," I have to agree with most of the authors we've read, that no, grammar should not be the ultimate focus, or maybe even a focus of any kind, of a writing course. Now I'm sure that I feel that way. Yes, I can certainly sympthize with those of us who argue for the importance of grammar, and I do not think that it would be acceptable for a student paper to read (and I have heard this in a paper in a junior or senior level undergraduate literature course) "Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 didn't make no sense to me." Yes, this raises my grammatical hackles a bit, I must admit, but at the same time I don't see a lot of reason for going into "grammar tunnel vision" and failing the paper before even finishing reading it. As Lindsay says in her post on Williams: "There is awareness and then there is obsession." I couldn't possibly agree with her more.

One of the most striking things that I noticed in Williams was the discussion of grammatical errors that occur in grammatical handbooks (the "Word" of the grammarians that dictates our every utterance written or spoken ) I think in light of this, and in not losing sight of the fact that language usage and the language system itself is not a particularly stable and timeless system (we can't forget Derrida's response to Saussure's discussion of the system of signs that we utilize in which the "center is not the center"). My "A Ha" moment occured as I read:

"Now again, it is not the error as such that I am concerned with here, but rather the fact that after Barzun stated the rule, and almost immediately violated it, no one noticed--not Barzun himself who must certainly have read the manuscript several times, not a colleague to whom he probably gave the manuscript before he sent it to the publisher, not the copy editor who worked over the manuscript, not the proof reader who read the galleys, not Barzun who probably read the galleys after them, apparently not even anyone in the reading public, since that which hasn't been corrected in any of the subsequent printings." (157)

If the writer of a grammar handbook and all of those listed above cannot recognize a certain grammatical rule and its violation, I do not see how anyone would want to hold a basic writer accountable for something of this caliber. I certainly wouldn't. To me, it almost seems that many of these grammar "rules" that can't be argued to not exist per se, can be argued to be basically defunct. If we do not speak or write, in an academic setting or otherwise, something like "Goeth the king forth this morning," I do not see any reason to preserve and reinforce a rule that says that the verb comes before the subject in good writing. Ok, so it did for Shakespeare, but I think we need to be realistic. I do not think this would fly at the bank, in personal correspondence, in academic writing, or anywhere else, but I can probably almost guarantee you can dig up a rule somewhere that says you should do this to be effective. I think basically Williams alerts us to the fact that there are countless grammar rules, some which impact our ability to communicate and some of which do not. We could certainly dig up grammar handbooks from the 18th or 19th century, but my question is "what does that have to do with the teaching of writing now?"

Again, let me emphasize, that I heartily recognize that errors exist that are probably not acceptable in freshman writing courses, and I do not advocate totally ignoring them. I do not, however, think that it's necessary to nit-pick every single error we discover just because it was written in a book somewhere sometime that it's wrong. I think it is important to consider the audience to which the writing is geared, the time period in which the writing is situated and the function you wish your writing to perform. Yes, there's a time and a place for an academic voice, as well as one for txt msg lingo, and that this is what is important to teach our students. I think above all else thus far that I've learned in this course and the beliefs that I've held toward writing prior to it point to the incredible importance of a writer being able to consider their audience and their purpose, not being able to diagram a sentence, recognize danging participles, split infinitives etc. I've studied all this stuff in the past, and I write (as we all know) on a pretty prolific scale by necessity, and I do not know if I could recognize every (barely any anymore) grammar atrocity I was once taught to recognize. I still manage to write my papers, do well on them and get my point across. I guess we all probably need to ask ourselves how important the more nit-picky grammar rules that still exist are to us, or if teaching our students to communicate clearly and think critically is more important. I think we will all face challenges in how class time will be utilized, and it will depend upon the students in the class and their needs, but I personally will not be wasting time teaching them about dangling constructions and the appropriate uses of cases that essentially do not even exist in this language anymore. I want to work with ideas. If I see something come up again and again for a student grammatically that detracts from what I am working to teach them or obstructs their purpose, we will talk about it and I will offer options and answer questions, but I will not force the entire class to read a grammar handbook.

Another really interesting thing about Williams' article is how he points out: "...if we read any text the way we read freshman essays, we will find many of the same kind of errors we routinely expect to find and therefore do find. But if we would read those student essays unreflexively, if we could make the ordinary kidn of contract with those texts that we make with other kinds of texts, then we could find many fewer errors" (159). Basically, if we set out on a mission to find every little thing in student papers, that is precisely what we will find. I do not see where this is particularly productive. Considering Barzun, his editors, etc etc. did not find his errors in his grammar handbook, I do not see why basic writers should be held to a grammatical standard that no one seems to recognize (or care) is being violated and that a grammarian himself cannot catch in his own work. I think this is asking too much for too little payoff. I do not see how it is helpful to expect perfection, especially when it comes to grammar. I think sometimes some teachers (those kinds of English teachers) get a little too caught up in error-hunting. I think this is Williams' point and I agree with it.

I hope I will not be accused of bringing on the destruction of Western civilization as we know it and the murder of the mother-tongue, because I do not think every possible error should be overlooked, and some things probably need to be addressed, but I don't think a dangling modifier should be treated with the gravity of a threat of nuclear holocaust and the end of human existence as we know it. I think we all know that if a grammarian can't notice certain grammar errors, that people like ourselves reading a scholarly journal such as CCC can pick out only a handful of one hundred consciously committed errors on a first read (all of these people who have studied the language on an advanced level), then I do not think our students will be in danger of a CEO of a company who went to school for Business, or even that Senior Vice President of a bank (who makes frequent appearances in our course) who went to school for Finance is likely to pick out these kinds of errors. I can't see where bothering with the kinds of errors that one would have to go on a texual expedition with the aid of three grammar handbooks just to locate would be a productive use of class time or a benefit to our students, now or in the future.

Well I guess this was a bit of a rant, but I do feel better having gotten it out of my system. Ain't nuttin' like gettin' that monkey offa yr back, are their? :)