Natural Selection

The three chapters from this week's reading by Constance Weaver, Grammar to Enrich and Enhance Writing, were in some ways both affirming and cautionary to me. As I read the 12 principles of teaching grammar on the inside cover of this book, I found many of them lined up with what I (inadvertently, at least) would consider were steps or revelations in my experience in learning how to write effectively. I felt caution while reading over them, however, because I feel like in some ways my teaching ability is hampered by this naturalized, wild method of fostering knowledge of grammatical principles.

Put another way, I feel like much of my knowledge of good writing skills occurred in spite of, and not from, actual classroom instruction. For example, I can attribute much of my ability as a writer coming from two principles that Weaver: three, which states that grammar comes from “literacy-rich and language-rich environments,” and five, where grammar is “expanded through reading and in conjunction with writing.” I learned early on through reading that sentence structures should be varied, that connecting words were essential to paragraph transitions, that a good “hook” catches a reader’s attention, and on and on. Then I applied these things to my writing, both in and out of school.

On the other hand, when or even if the things that I had gleaned from reading and writing on my own were taught to me in school, they ended up being confusing or contradictory. I can remember a friend of mine in tenth grade, who for her final paper wrote a very eloquent essay on a topic of her choosing. This upset the teacher to begin with, since she disapproved of students formulating their own theses, and she told my friend that “This is too smart for high school. Too wordy. Tone it down.” This was beyond baffling to me. We had been taught about how to create arguments, support them with the text, and use language appropriately. Yet when my friend implemented these things successfully in her work—above and beyond the call of duty— she was condemned for it.

I know that, since my experience with grammar cultivated in school was so negative, I need to move towards a classroom of grammar naturalized. I agree wholeheartedly with Weaver when she says that teachers need to move beyond “basics first” or “programmed” teaching. Students need to be challenged. Though they might protest, I think that most might grudgingly agree that a challenging class is more interesting than a boring one. They need to know that they might not “get” everything yet, but that they can figure out more and more as they keep broadening their experiences in reading and writing.

When I reflect back upon my experience as a student, my teachers were trying their hardest to teach grammar in its proper context. Their success seemed defendant upon how much their were willing to trust their students to learn—on their own—to read and write. In a way, trusting your students is a relinquishment of control that I think the more traditional, old school teachers feared. From experience, I know that grammar in context works; my fear is, though, that I will be unsuccessful in showing students the value of reading and writing for its own sake as well as to prepare them for the real world. In short, motivation. My dilemma then, is cultivating (ironically) something that I derived naturally.

Defining The Undefinable - The Evolution of Language

This week’s readings from Roberts and Bryson dealt with the history of the English language and how English speakers over the years have tried to define and navigate their language.

One theme that I noted threaded throughout all of the recent readings was how language is a constantly changing, evolving structure that we depend upon to firmly convey ideas. Put another way, so much of communication, and thus, language depends upon semantics and tone. Words that define one thing in one time or place can connote something very different centuries or even just years later. For example, fifty years ago if I were particularly filled one day with joie de vivre, someone might say I was feeling gay. Today, that word has a rather different designation and meaning! Because language is changing and evolving, it is almost darkly humorous that we create rules for it so that it can be defined the same for everyone, and therefore remain objective.

It was interesting for me, then, to read about how grammar rules are rendered almost meaningless by all the little exceptions (especially with Bryson’s snarky voice doing so). I was particularly amused by the passage in which he discussed the difficulty in defining even the most basic concepts in English grammar, like the sentence. I was reminded of a conversation I overheard with a Korean exchange student at my high school. “English makes no sense. It’s a cheater! Every rule just gets broken.”

Something that I learned about those pesky grammar rules while reading these articles was that part of the problem comes from the rules being based on Latin, which only contributed some of the words that helped make the English language.  I think that this problem of lingual differences will continue over time, as other languages appropriate our words and vice versa. One only needs to do an internet search for “Engrish” to get some hilarious results.

A darker side to those grammar rules is the way that groups like the Académie Française tried to make language a nationalist endeavor. Though creating standardized forms for words though dictionaries certainly helped in making communication clearer, there is also a danger in having one group try to say what counts as part of the language, and what doesn’t. For one, an exclusionist policy on your language stifles its development. I can only imagine how stunted English would be today, for example, if Shakespeare were not allowed to add phrases to it like “star-crossed lovers.” Furthermore, letting any one group say what is or isn’t part of the vernacular is dangerously controlling. Words have power, especially when they are manipulated or omitted.

On the other hand though, the Roberts article reminded me of the collaborative process that is language. For language to change and evolve, words, and thus people need to have an exchange. From the beginnings of English with the Anglo-Saxons to English today, by tracing how English evolved you have a window into the diverse cultures that spoke and wrote it. In short, the history of grammar and language is also a history of people.