UNconventional Grammar

If I got one thing out of these few chapters it would have to be: teach grammar with writing! This was one concept that was constantly reiterated in this reading. However, it speaks the truth about the purpose grammar serves in our use of language – that we actually use grammar in our formal writing when expressing ideas. I couldn’t help but think back to our first day of class when we were talking about our feelings toward grammar, what kind of mastery we have over the topic and what we hoped to learn in the class. It was through our discussion that I realized that maybe grammar isn’t so important when informally or vocally expressing ideas. Classroom discussion is a perfect example of this, because students may be talking about newly formed ideas or even just winging it as they go.

Grammar to Enrich and Enhance Writing definitely takes an alternative approach to this subject – I feel like I’ve never been taught grammar in this way before! (Really, I don’t think I have ever been taught any other way than through Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition.) As I started to read over the three structural features of the English language, I honestly felt a little confused by these classifications. I felt kind of dumb, but then I read on and the book explained that these are learned, implied categories. I always just thought of the standard terms used to name nouns, participles, conjunctions, etc. But what Constance Weaver stresses is to categorize these terms by their function, not by assigned meaning.

I never thought of respecting students’ dialects as a part of teaching multiculturalism, but it is true that many students will refuse to give up some of their slang. Even as an English major, I will still use improper grammar at times. But the difference is, I know what I am doing wrong and I recognize this. Does that matter? I always thought so but maybe not. Throughout all these grammar conspiracies, I was actually glad to read the part about interviewers’ grammatical pet peeves. I still want grammar to be considered where it should be, and be taught to students as it is applicable to their lives. Where better to apply these skills than the workforce?

Principles of English

"A Brief History of English" I found to be a nice little refresher on my history timeline, even though most of the info is pre-1500. It was a bit difficult to keep up with all the contributors to our language, but the article helped to slow down and clarify some of the key points from that gut-busting video. For one, I found it interesting that Modern English is subdivided into Early and Late Modern because it shows how rapidly our language is changing and branching off now. The Old English version of The Lord's Prayer was definitely cool too. But there was one statement from Mr. Roberts that continued to swirl around in my mind: "Languages don't become simpler; they merely exchange one kind of complexity for another." I guess I want to know what is stopping a language from developing into a simplified version of repetitive slang, for instance. Isn't it possible? The real kicker was at the end, where Roberts says it was "silly" to apply the grammatical rules of Latin to English, and blames this flawed system for some students' disinterest in the subject. I agree with the first part of this argument but I'm unsure about the second. Do the students lack respect for this system or are they showing apathy for a greater concept?

A few of these elements were repeated in "Good English and Bad," but this article was able to give me a more in-depth analysis of the English language. I always knew that it was sort of backwards, but now I have an idea as to why it is so confusing. Mainly it was how Latin rules were applied to English, but the contradictory classifications and such at the beginning of the piece really had me questioning this subject I love so much! I also never knew how much the potential revisions and alterations of the English language were disputed over by men like Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Johnson. When I think about it, it is only natural that some should want to take action in controlling or facilitating change in the language. A united nation has a dominant language. But it seems to be getting a bit ridiculous when people are getting quite offended by a dictionary. I suppose that shows the high standard we hold to the dictionary as the language auhtority.

I chose "It's Like, EXTREME But Not GROSS" and I just couldn't help but laugh at the expression "missed the forest for the trees" in the first sentence. Perfect play on words for all this exploration into language and its meaning. As I was reading through this final article, I could recognize with at least 3 of the trends Lehigh pointed out among the younger generations. It was almost shameful. Then I felt even worse because television is eroding my and everyone else's brain. Just the other day I read that brain activity is higher when we are sleeping than when we are watching TV! It is true that watching the tube is a passive brain activity, whereas reading, like the article said, is an active one. I believe that TV is a large part of the declining language compentency rate, but there are surely more factors at play here. Both of these are part of a larger culture that has developed in the younger generations, as I see it. In this culture, where school isn't cool, why bother to study subjects like English?