Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Grammar" & "Usage"
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:03:53 EST
 <1992Aug20.232516.13379@Princeton.EDU> <1992Aug22.200534.3699@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug23.045553.3796@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Wright State University 



Roger> And yet: we're in a usage discussion group, where issues of formal
> grammar are also raised.  Given the circumstance, the context, etc., I
> think the appropriateness of lumping all the different issues together
> under "grammar" is questionable.

TH>I have read, with growing uneasiness, Roger's defense of the grammar/usage
>distinction, how any usage is basically cool as long as someone understands
>the message.

Roger> *sigh* That's not what I said.  Usages are cool or uncool in their
> contexts.

So can we agree that there is a reliably standard set of English usage rules?
And that these vary (only slightly) for different situations?
Well...

TH>I have two points.  First, a question for Roger:
>what in the world did you do as a copy editor (a job you mentioned you held)?

Roger>My job: to bring the usage and style of the text in question into
> line with the usage and style expected in the context for which it was
> written.  (With foreign students' work, I also fixed errors of grammar.)
> Record liner copy and dissertations demand differnt styles, and don't
> always prefer the same usages.  I looked for things that were
> inappropriate *to the situation.*
> I also reformulated things for clarity, and (especially for records) for
> lower word count.

So far, so good.  You say "toe-MAY-toe," I say "toe-MAH-toe," but we use it the
same way.

Roger> Formal rules are fine, so long as they actually describe what's what --
> and what the context is in which the rule should operate.
> 
>>You would think Gabe some sort of weenie for insisting on good -- at least
>>standard -- writing skills in his employees. 
> 
> Um, no.  I look for that sort of thing myself.  (Upshot: I wind up
> fixing everyone else's business letters...)
> Good, standard business style is *important* -- mainly because people
> judge your business by it (alas).  
> But I'd be appalled if Gabe were to fire someone, or not hire them,
> because they misplaced a modifier somewhere, especially in speech.

Yes, it's important.  And as long as it's important it should be insisted upon
and cultivated.  So why do you waffle here?  Either it's important as you say,
or it's not that important, as you indicate below...  

TH> (...) wink at the rules we have flaunted.  
 
Roger> (Shouldn't that be "Flouted"?   Gotta watch those distinctions...8-) )

Yes, very good: I should have written "flouted."

>>It *is* funny when we know that one *does*
>>understand the rules and then *consciously* bends them.  But allow me to
>>present for you, verbatim, a paragraph from a student paper I have just read:
> 
>>"Additional research could be done on how the size of the group as well as the
>>proportion of men to female ratio is.  Does it help or hinder combining the to
>>genders in groups who must problem solve for survival.  How does the dominance
>>wiegh out in an artifacial setting compared to a in the field study."
> 
Roger> It's actually pretty straightforward, once you get past the spelling.
> Sloppy formulation, to be sure, and it would be nice
> to know more about what group size and sex ratio are supposed to affect.
> But, aside from getting the writer to write closer to speech (yes!), and
> to use question marks and a spellchecker, I can't get  too upset abut
> this.  

His writing reads like tea leaves in mud.  This is not clear writing.
It is not business English.  It is not street English.  It is poor writing.  It
communicates only that the student did not understand what he was talking
about, even when spoken aloud (try it).  Bonita points out in another post that
oral communication involves many nonverbal cues; since we cannot rely on
nonverbals here -- except for smileys -- I am chagrinned at your suggestion. 
Surely you did not engage in copy editing so that dissertations and liner notes
sounded more like oral reports?
   
TH>Do you *honestly* think you would hire this person for a job in your
> company?

Roger> Depends on the job.  Depends on what they'd shown me they could do.  I
> don't think I'd hire them for the technical writer position, or even as
> a typist; but I know terrific programmers who can't write that well.

If you received an application blank or letter with as many mistakes 
as the sample of writing above, you would seriously consider this applicant?
Come on, Roger, I think not.  Now if you knew that the person was a great
second baseman or a veteran firefighter, *and that's what you were hiring for*,
that's different because written communication would not be important.  
But if you were hiring for a job where communication was
important -- which includes most jobs -- I believe that this student would be
passed over for a better writer.
  
TH> Do you *honestly* think this excerpt shows creativity? 
 
Roger > No.  Do you expect the "recommendations for future research " graf
> to show creativity?  It's almost always the same bullshit.

I'm not sure what you meant here.  My question was, do you think that 
this student's misuse of standard writing shows creativity, as opposed to
misunderstanding how to communicate properly -- yes, properly -- in written
English?  It does not matter that this sample occurs near the end of the paper
-- the whole paper was written like this.
 
TH>Do you *honestly* think that there is no need for this person to 
> re-learn the basics of grammar and usage?

Roger>Yes. However, the person needs to learn how to transfer that intuitive
> knowledge into good writing.  Some people speak well and write
> execrably.  This person is probably not too far away from writing
> adequately. 

So you are agreeing that that this person needs to learn -- re-learn,
maybe -- grammar and usage.

Roger>I might add that many people who speak excellently write 
> badly 

(I assume that was meant to rankle on purpose)

>because they were intimidated by poor pedagogy, sometimes of the abusive,
> sarcastic type, during their schooling.  Very few teachers teach writing
> well.

I am curious about two things here.  First, you say that good speaking can be
turned into good writing.  Do you believe that the opposite is true?

Second, if you are implying that I have abused or intimidated that student, 
you would be wrong, and your statement is not only exactly twisted
180 degrees from the truth but spiteful also.

Roger> Um, I thought it was "yes" to the third question that was the wrong
> answer.
> Perhaps you don't write clearly enough!  8-)

I usually write "clearly enough" except on Saturday nights when I have been
grading wretched papers and get somewhat apoplectic about it all.

But you understood what I meant, so why should my exact wording matter to you? 
You have gleefully tweaked me twice, but in turn your responses to my three
questions about the student's writing are remarkably disingenuous.  
You said that usages must conform the the purpose for communication.  You said
that correct business English was important.  Why then do you change your mind
down here?

Besides, my expectations of someone graduating from college are higher 
than what I have reproduced above.  Why not?
   
Roger> Well, why not tell me? You said the student needed to re-learn the
> basics of grammar and usage.  In my non-expert, but somewhat informed (I
> hope) opinion, I'd say that was wrong.  The student needs to learn how
> to write--and most of that involves aping formal, but uncomplicated
> speech.  I bet that student speaks grammatical sentences, even nice
> formal ones, on occasion.  

And he's a nice guy, too, and his mother loves him (I guess).

Simply "aping formal, but uncomplicated speech" is not necessarily correct
English usage for writing.  Much communication in speech, again as Bonita
pointed out, is nonverbal, and when verbal depends on pitch, etc. of voice. 
I would say that good speakers who also write well (or passably) do so because
they understand how to use the language appropriately for that medium.  I don't
think that one could write well for long only on the prowess of verbal felicity.

Roger> Locating the precise problems in the student's writing is indeed the
> task of an expert; a teacher.  I doubt a teacher would do a complete
> course in grammar, etc., for this student.

OK: in my "expert" opinion, this student does not have a grasp on how to
communicate in writing in general.  Plus why wouldn't a complete course in
grammar and usage be beneficial?  How could it hurt?

Roger> (Hey, you've heard bits of George Bush's speech.  Does *he* need to
> re-learn basic grammar and usage?  He's got a bigger problem than this
> kind, imho.)

Well, now that you ask, *The New Republic* does run a "Bush-ism of the week"
section.  Plus I don't know whether the president writes in standard English,
but if he took your advice and aped his speech I bet you'd hate to read it!


Roger> On the contrary: we should insist on knowing what the standards actually
> are, and what they're used for.

So we agree that there are standards?  Do we disagree that there are
different standards for speaking & writing, but that there is a reasonably
standard English?

TH>And Rome will continue to burn while experts fiddle.
> 
> I'm amazed you got this far without the "barbarians at the gate"
> argument.  Funny how people have been saying this about English since
> Swift's time--and the language burns, but is not consumed.

As you and I agree, the burning continues.  I believe that it will be subsumed
-- not consumed -- under TV standard blather, but that's just my opinion.

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english