Summary
Bill Bryson, in his article “Good English and Bad,” attempts
to expose to other academics many of the grammatical rules we have come to
accept over the years as foundationless. He cites the initial impracticality of
basing English grammar on that of Latin, a dead romance language, and goes on
to show that many academics who came up with certain grammatical rules had no
good reason to make them in the first place. He proposes caution, because
although English is by its nature always changing, it is good to question those
changes somewhat, in order that they may be tested for their validity. Bryson
sees how grammar is being taught as right or wrong, and wants to introduce us
to the ample middle ground between the two.
Synthesis
Bryson’s solution at the end of his article, to embrace
change and yet question it at the same time, reminds me of Peter Elbow’s
“both/and” way of thinking. Though the two write on different subjects, the
“both/and” spirit remains the same in the two pieces.
Like Dawkins, Bryson questions the model of prescriptive
grammar that nearly all of us our taught from infancy. Whereas Bryson is more
intent on exposing some of these grammar rules as foundationless, Dawkins
proposes a real model for sensible grammar usage. Both address the problem, but
only Dawkins proposes a method with which to change it. However, Dawkins just
covers punctuation, which is admittedly easier to address a solution to than
the many and varied rules that Bryson covers.
Pre-reading Exercise
3) I think technology (specifically texting and tweeting)
has made brevity desirable in our communications with each other. I also think
it has lowered the level of formality we sometimes eschew in other forms of
communication. Correct grammar, full sentences, even the complete spellings of
words have gone out the window. “Totes” has become shorthand for “totally,”
“cray” for “crazy”.
Questions For Discussion and Journaling
1) Bryson challenges the notion of
many of the grammatical rules we think we have to follow in order to speak and
write “good English”. He does this by citing the fact that there is no logical
reason we follow these rules (some of them are even counter-intuitive) and that
the learned men who put them into place admitted that they had no real
grammatical reasons for doing so. He often cited Robert Lowth as the originator
of some of these arbitrary rules. For example: “Why should you take a
plural verb when the sense is clearly singular? The answer—surprise,
surprise—is that Robert Lowth didn’t like it” (65-6).
2) Bryson says that English has such a complex grammar
structure because we base it on Latin. This wouldn’t be so bad, except English
is not very closely related to Latin. Early scholars’ insistence on modeling
English grammar after Latin is how we got many quirky little rules (like not
splitting infinitives). Furthermore, we have never had a supreme council that
governs over our language, so essentially any scholar with access to a printing
press could make his claim for a specific grammatical rule.
3) Prescriptive grammar tells you the correct way to write.
Descriptive grammar explains different ways to approach grammar without making
any value judgments (or at least not very forcefully). Before this class, I
have mostly encountered prescriptive grammar. After reading these articles,
however, I have come to know a thing or two about descriptive grammar.
Meta Moment
Noun, verb, adjective, adverb, proper noun, direct object,
indirect object, preposition, and conjunction. I learned all of these through
school, whether through English classes or foreign language classes, I can’t
remember (probably a combination of both). I think knowing the terminology of
grammar has been helpful to me in my writing because it gives me a specific
vocabulary with which to discuss my writing with teachers, tutors, peers, etc.
Personal Thoughts
No comments:
Post a Comment