All Things Grammatical
I started teaching a writing course at Seneca a few weeks ago. I have a great class, my students are very keen and want to learn how to improve their everyday writing. It is students like mine that give me hope for the future. The future of grammar I mean.
I read this lovely article in the May 2009 PMLA entitled "Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar". The article argued for the need to "simultaneously teach the prescriptive grammatical rules and empower students to think critically about them" (871), which I applaud and try to do in my classroom every week. I am a proponent of the merits of descriptive grammar, describing what speakers do. Prescriptive grammar on the other hand is so very rigid; it does not allow for the changes that happen as language morphs and is performed in different ways.
However, one needs to be aware of going too far to the other side. The peril of the morphology of language through technology is seen in this article that made the rounds last week. I am not okay with my students writing a sentence in an essay for my class that says, "thnk u 4 the grammar help." I am also not okay with a student for the university class I am grading essays for having the following in a sentence: "as a pose to" (instead of as opposed to).
I make typos, I split infinitives, I use colloquialisms at times when I am tired. However, I believe what is more important than all of this is using language ethically (a sentiment also echoed by Anne Curzan in the PMLA article mentioned above). There needs to be some sort of structure to our written word, this is how we as humans can understand, communicate, and decipher meanings. Using the word "like" as a hedge in your written work, will receive a note beside it explaining how it is colloquial and a hedge. I will not punish you as harshly for a hedge, as say a dropped quotation (which in my opinion there is NO EXCUSE FOR). I hate dropped quotations, they are my number one pet peeve; my former colleague Allison and I used to call them, "here's some stuff." Language changes, it is our duty as teachers to keep up with those changes and make sure that our students are always asking "why."
My students are at the forefront of descriptive grammar. They are always asking why something is written in a certain way and not others. I am happy to tell them both the prescriptive way, but also inform them of any descriptive changes and uses. They are grateful for both; they have told me that descriptive grammar helps them understand idioms that would not be readily accessible to them. These types of comments make me very happy and are why I am ridiculously pleased with this course and how it is going. The performative aspect of my language is also the ethical aspect of my language.
I read this lovely article in the May 2009 PMLA entitled "Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar". The article argued for the need to "simultaneously teach the prescriptive grammatical rules and empower students to think critically about them" (871), which I applaud and try to do in my classroom every week. I am a proponent of the merits of descriptive grammar, describing what speakers do. Prescriptive grammar on the other hand is so very rigid; it does not allow for the changes that happen as language morphs and is performed in different ways.
However, one needs to be aware of going too far to the other side. The peril of the morphology of language through technology is seen in this article that made the rounds last week. I am not okay with my students writing a sentence in an essay for my class that says, "thnk u 4 the grammar help." I am also not okay with a student for the university class I am grading essays for having the following in a sentence: "as a pose to" (instead of as opposed to).
I make typos, I split infinitives, I use colloquialisms at times when I am tired. However, I believe what is more important than all of this is using language ethically (a sentiment also echoed by Anne Curzan in the PMLA article mentioned above). There needs to be some sort of structure to our written word, this is how we as humans can understand, communicate, and decipher meanings. Using the word "like" as a hedge in your written work, will receive a note beside it explaining how it is colloquial and a hedge. I will not punish you as harshly for a hedge, as say a dropped quotation (which in my opinion there is NO EXCUSE FOR). I hate dropped quotations, they are my number one pet peeve; my former colleague Allison and I used to call them, "here's some stuff." Language changes, it is our duty as teachers to keep up with those changes and make sure that our students are always asking "why."
My students are at the forefront of descriptive grammar. They are always asking why something is written in a certain way and not others. I am happy to tell them both the prescriptive way, but also inform them of any descriptive changes and uses. They are grateful for both; they have told me that descriptive grammar helps them understand idioms that would not be readily accessible to them. These types of comments make me very happy and are why I am ridiculously pleased with this course and how it is going. The performative aspect of my language is also the ethical aspect of my language.
Perhaps a useful starting point re: grammar instruction would be to come to consensus about what we expect students to know about grammar and when. Establishing a common ground on this issue can help us determine what to diagnostically assess in order to determine our students’ relative strengths and weaknesses. Only at this point does it make sense to discuss the instructional strategies that will address the needs of our students. For more about how to establish this consensus, read this article at http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/grammar-instruction-establishing-common-ground/
ReplyDelete