Mulroy. Chapter 2. Yay.

What do you make of Mulroy's claim that "Questioning the value of basic grammar is like asking whether farmers should know the names of their crops and animals."

Mulroy is trying to point out that a person must have knowledge of basic grammar in order to communicate clearly and effectively. Not only that, but if a farmer doesn't know the names of his crops and animals, how will other farmers or consumers take him seriously? In the same manner, how will colleages be able to take a person seriously if that person doesn't know basic grammar? This is similiar to the business article we read in class. I think it was by Beason.

I Think Some Crackhead Got Holt of da Wrong Stuff!

David Mulroy's "The Myth of the Bad Old Days" focuses on traditional vs. modern approaches to grammar instruction. It begins with commentary on ATEGs (Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar) opinion that the traditional ways of teaching grammar are irreversibly flawed. Mulroy also comments on ATEGs belief that the discovery of more modern ways to teach grammar are imperative. He then goes on to defend the traditonal means of grammar instruction. He points out two authors whos texts "embody traditonal school grammar" (88). After this fascinating information, Mulroy claims that Reed and Kellogg (the 2 authors who absolutely embrace old school grammar) are surprisingly similiar in their teaching methods to modern grammar instructors. After this, he goes into great detail about diagramming. This detail also includes illustrations.

I have to admit I was somewhat excited and surprised when Mulroy first started talking about tree diagramming. Why? It was awesome to read about something different for once. This excitement was short-lived however when I kept reading and found out there was only a small section dedicated to tree diagramming. I thought it interesting he actually presented a view different than that of his own. He also provided a LOT (or what seemed like a lot to me) of illustrations on how to properly draw Reed-Kellogg diagrams. Since we have already covered many ways to diagram sentences I found this section to be repetitive. Which could or could not be a good thing.

Aaaand Peace, Yo.

SWE....

Why yes I do think Standard Written English should be taught. I believe we need it to communicate clearly and effectively. I think I said this when I commented on Rachel's blog, but I, for one, do not wish to spend my uber precious time seeking clarification from people. I usually have questions about what they write anyways, like when I further inquire about a topic. So, I don't want to spend (waste) more time trying to understand what they mean.

As far as how it should be taught, I dont have any revolutionary ideas. It is probably more productive for people to learn SWE through composition. This way they learn through practice and have a more hands on experience. It seems it would be more difficult to learn through worksheets and then try to apply it to writing. However, people learn in different ways, so I suppose it wouldn't hurt to use both methods.

That is all. For now.

Mulroy. Again.

Mulroy (not surprisingly) stands up for prescriptivists. He explains that good grammar is necessary to reserve and spread the standard language of a country. America never really bought into establishing linguistic academies for the use of creating a standard language. With Webster publishing the first dictionary in 1806, grammar rules (basically standard English) became embedded into the English language. Mulroy claims that critisizing presciptivism so harshly has become "fashionable." He thinks this act, used most commonly by modern linguists, has hindered the teaching of proper grammar. He then goes on to explain why people should respect and learn standard English, saying that using standard English has slowed the rate of change in the English language.

Riveting.

pinker

Pinker gave many examples of why prescriptivists are "Kibbitzers" and "nudniks." My only problem with some of these examples is that I seemed to get lost. Or bored. I think I read one paragraph 3 times before I actually comprehended it. And even now, sitting here at the computer, it is difficult to force myself to comment on "Grammar Puss." Don't get me wrong, I like the article. I agree with Pinker's points (those of which I thoroughly followed). One of my favorite lines is when he states that "most of the prescriptive rules of the lanuage mavens make no sense on any level." I guess I just wished Pinker could have made these claims using a little less ink. Most of the time greater detail results in greater understanding. However, I'm not sure I understand it any better.

This post may not make any sense. I'm tired. And words are forming in my brain at an unusually slow rate. eh.

Oh Dear

I think i need to say..Um, Yeah..my bad?
And no, its not to you..whoever you are.

So I went to Polo's last night and had a drink with Patti (my old boss at the Frog). She told me Debbie was leasing out the Frog to someone so they could reopen it. I'm thinking a) its not going to stay open too long, because the person who she leased it out to has a reputation for flaking on his business partners and b) Debbie can kick rocks. Seriously.

And tonight is my grandpa's surprise birthday party. I'm taking Loralei with. Free food anyone? Plus, I love my family, but sometimes its good to have an out. They can be...well, you'd have to meet them to understand. And good luck with that because there are SO many. I still dont know everybody's names...I refer to some people as "brocolli and cheese lady" and "girl with tiny cute kid" ..and there are like 3 Ronnie's, who i get mixed up with the Lonnie's and sometimes..you just need an OUT.

Grammar Mugging?

Interviewers: Kasey McKinzie, Michaela Worcester
Interviewee: Robin Murphy
Date: September 03, 2008
Time: 1:00



Kasey and Michaela state Mulroy's claim. They ask Murphy if she agrees. She does not. They ask why. This is, apparently, the magic word that unlocks Pandora’s box. After this word slipped out, here is what ensued...

Robin Murphy does not believe there is an actual decline in grammar instruction. After all, secondary school teachers are required to teach it and Kasey and Michaela are required to take it. She would like to see grammar become less prevalent since it has nothing to do with actual composition skills. She then goes on to say Mulroy must be in a "dream sequence" if he actually believes his claim to be true because of the reality of writing classroom instruction. Mulroy makes it too easy. The problem isn’t that simple. Murphy agrees that there is a definite decline the interest of grammar instruction, but not in the practice of grammar instruction itself. As far as Mulroy himself, Murphy muses over the fact that his primary qualifications are in Literature theory, not in composition theory. So why is he talking about grammar composition? Hmm. Murphy then begins to explain in an even more detailed description the battle between lit. theorists and people who focus more on content and composing skills. This leaves the interviewers with an even deeper understanding (dread) of the controversies within the English speaking/writing/grammar composing world. Great.

The next day, after the interview was supposedly concluded, Kasey logged into Facebook, only to find her wall had been abused by Murphy's rant on grammar use in composition. In this post, she explains that grammar will most likely never disappear from composition classes because it’s easy to use as an assessment tool, but it’s not a legit way to access WRITING.

Creeper Update

So, I was about to get in my car tonight when...Creeper comes across the street with Wannabe Cowboy and asks if they can get a ride. I said "no" and then mumbled something about not having enough gas. It didn't take me long to get in my car and lock the doors. Creeper has his own van to drive around in. I know it works because I saw him driving it down our street earlier today. I remember hoping there weren't any kids around since he seems like the type of guy that would lure small children into his van with candy.
On a side note, if somebody lets you sleep on their couch because you are too inebriated to go home, the least you could do is NOT piss on it...Just puttin that out there...

Hoop! Der it is!

Wallace's aticle, "Tense Present", reviewed how Bryan A. Garner's A Dictionary of Modern American Usage balances the relationship between authority and democracy. Though most authors will usually tip the scale in favor of one or the other, Wallace seems to believe Garner proportioned these two issues equally. Wallace points out that Garner uses the "Democratic Spirit" when writing the usage guide, but doesn't hesitate to mention his use of authority either.
The article then goes on to talk about Garner's use of prescriptivism, getting into the difference between prescriptivists and descriptivists.

Beasizzle

I like how Beason interviewed a small number of people so his audience could see the individual critiques of the subjects. Instead of clustering all their responses together, he stretched them apart to see the finest detail. This was helpful in understanding why they thought different errors were more or less bothersome. This is what sets this Beason's research apart from most others. Different articles would most likely be quick to establish a greater number of subjects and generalize the results of each subject. Around the latter half of the article, Beason explains that errors in a paper will induce different responses from readers. They will each critique you and judge you differently. After reading this, why would I want to write anything? I am certain my grammatical skills are not up to par, so it leaves me a bit self-conscious about my writing. Beason then goes on to say that although people are judging your writing, you should not be so quick to judge them. So basically, he is telling me tit for...what? No tat? I understand I shouldn't bring out the marching band every time I notice grammatical errors, however why should I sludge through somebody else's mistakes and not secretly judge them? Okay, yes, if I were to do that, it would probably not help the decline of unwanted stereotypes. So, I guess in that sense Beason makes a good point.

If ya catch me on da border I got visas in ma name

Creeper is baaack. Well, for awhile at least. He's out on bail for 2nd degree manslaughter. Why? Because Naked Lady died from an alcohol AND a cocaine overdose...and the coke was Creepers. Lets hope he doesnt make a run for it...Or lets hope he does. I dont care as long as he gets far away from here!!!!Oh dear, gotta love. my. life.

Ghetto Grammar- Part Dos

The second chapter of Mulroy's book also mentions how rhetoric is the "least respectable of liberal arts." I understand Plato's claim that it is used to satisfy the empirical appetites and that it is not something innate or that a person is born with. Since, however, its "utalitarian value is so obvious" it seems that it would have more deserving view than what its given in this book.

If I'm reading this chapter right, then some ancient philosophers also believed that grammar is instinctive. For example, if using Plato's beliefs, grammar is not lost during from the transition of the soul from the transcendental realm to the empirical realm. It does not have to "awaken" within the soul. One line from the book states that people can't even conceive a thought without using grammar somehow. So does this mean that as young children, who have had no education in grammar, we still used it in our thought processes? This, for me, is somewhat hard to believe. What do you think?

Ghetto Grammar- Part 1

David Mulroy's The War Against Grammar mentions how the Greeks are mainly responsible for the creation of grammar. The thing I found most interesting about this chapter was the topic of the Seven Divine Bridesmaids. The topic of grammar versus rhetoric is the first thing that really caught my attention. The book infers that Plato held a higher opinion of grammar than of rhetoric. To me, this is somewhat intriguing, since it seems all philosophical data, before Plato started writing, was remembered through oral speech.

I will continue this conversation later, but must tend to other things right now.

Grammar in the Hood

I think almost everyone approached grammar the same way. Nobody really liked it at first, but soon organizing and structuring sentences became addicting. I feel that in order to like grammar, one must surely suffer from O.C.D. Okay, I'm only kidding. They either suffer from that or they really appreciate the written language. When I was first introduced to grammar, I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about it. After time though, I learned to look forward to the class where labeling sentences took up a majority of the hour.
My first memory of grammar would have to be in elementary school where we practiced the Shirley-English Method. I enjoyed labeling sentences. However, as I grew older I found it much more enjoyable to create the sentences that needed to be labeled. I preferred to write.
The question of why grammar should be taught and learned is not difficult to answer. Grammar is knowledge. According to a some philosophers, knowledge is the only good and ignorance is the only evil. If we believe this to be true, which to some degree I do, then grammar should simply be taught because it is knowledge.
This could probably be compared to working at a corporate office or something similiar. In the beginning, I had an entry level job delivering mail. In this position I spent a majority of my time in the basement, pushing around a cart piled high with stamped envelopes that needed my attention. Then, I got promoted. I no longer have to work in the basement, but I have an office with windows and even a fake plant in the corner. I get mail delivered to me. It seems that taking this class will be like revisiting the mailroom. Which is okay, because every now and then it is good to go back and remember where you came from.

Where in the world is Creeper?

Creeper has not been sighted for a few day now. Interesting.