Hehe, my response when I heard that was “That’d be real helpful if I was speaking Greek. I’m not, so it’s octopussies from here on out.”
Certainly. But “errors” that are so common it’s debatable whether they, linguistically speaking, are even errors anymore, such as “for all intensive purposes” or “of” for “'ve” are easily integrated into a “literate brain” to the extent they no longer detract and distract.
I think having the kind of brain that stumbles over every “error” in a text is a lot less useful than people with that kind of brain think it is. I base that on my own experience, where I have found that having more of a “live and let live” attitude allows me to read “badly written” texts without having to grit my teeth, while still being able to proofread when that is useful.
Although … I am fairly confident you lived through the Whole Language period. From the parent perspective it was awful. Getting ideas on paper no mind to spelling or punctuation has a place within the creative process. But as a parent I wanted my kids to write with other than a fifth grade peer group as the intended audience and the editing/proofreading process never seemed to get taught.
Well it did eventually: in High School History classes (never in any English or Rhetoric class). They all four did get there and are excellent writers now, the one who was in the hey day of Whole Language and the others too.
It is wonderful that you spark their creative juice. The boring mechanics of proper punctuation, spelling, correct word usage, so on, do also seem important as skills to master in fifth grade. Aren’t they?
It may seem that way when you focus on one common and microscopic mistake like the two examples cited, but it’s decidedly not the case when it’s part of a general pattern of poor grammar, when you’re facing the aggregated accumulation of a great many instances of such “common” errors peppered throughout the text, along with badly constructed sentences, incorrect homophones, punctuation that seems random rather than purposeful or is missing altogether, and all the other characteristics of atrocious writing that make reading such a chore.
I agree with @DSeid and I’ve already explained why such writing is genuinely more difficult to read and more subject to misunderstanding, and is certainly not the result of some pretension, or of being “hyperaware of non-standard language” as you claim. There seems little point in explaining the bleeding obvious yet again (I think I posted it twice; the original is post #37).
Instead I’ll just repeat what Steven Pinker gave as the primary reason that we should strive to write well:
… it ensures that writers will get their messages across, sparing readers from squandering their precious moments on earth deciphering opaque prose.
The man knows whereof he speaks.
“Bad” writing exists on a spectrum, and I doubt you’ll find any disagreement here that the extreme you describe here detracts and distracts. But the topic of this thread isn’t marginal literacy, and if that is all you have been talking about this whole time, you’ve made a piss-poor attempt at communicating it. To me it seems you ignore that the dose makes the poison and use the worst of writing to argue for prescriptivism. If that is not the case I apologize for misunderstanding.
Indeed it does, and that’s a point that I’ve made here several times.
I’ve made it pretty clear what it is that I’m talking about. I laid it out pretty clearly in Post #37. I would not want to suggest that perhaps you’ve made a piss-poor attempt at reading it, but maybe you missed it, or maybe I’ve expanded the topic beyond what @Riemann originally intended.
My first basic issue, as I said in that post, is Riemann’s attempt to distinguish between “objective” rules of grammar and rules that, presumably, are mere subjective decoration, analogous to Emily Post’s book of etiquette, as someone else said. The only example he offers is that native English speakers, at least, will always get the subject-verb-object structure correct. Presumably there are other such rudimentary rules that empower virtually anyone to be able to construct sentences like “Me like sammich. Sammich is good. Me want more.” which are presumably defensible as being not only grammatically correct, but perhaps also orthographically correct. This is the sort of academic exotica that parallels Noam Chomsky’s thesis that all humans possess an innate sense of an abstract “universal grammar”, which is ultimately embodied in all human languages. It’s an interesting theory, but it has little to do with the subject of practical literacy.
I vehemently maintain that there is much more to grammar than these rudimentary constructions which most of us have learned by around age five, and which consequently allow everyone to speak and write at the level of a five-year-old. So yes, the quality of writing, and what constitutes “bad writing”, does indeed exist on a spectrum. And on that spectrum, I hold my judgments of the quality and effectiveness of language use to higher standards than those mentioned above.
The statistic I cited in the above-mentioned post, that some 54% of Americans exhibit literacy below a sixth-grade level, I believe is closely related to a lack of rigour in how we regard language and its importance in effectively being able to communicate with our fellow human beings. I’m well aware that, presented with novel non-standard usage, linguists will be keen to analyze it and loathe to criticize it, but I can’t help but think that part of the problem is that only a small minority of linguists have stepped up and tried to apply their expertise to encouraging better writing. Steven Pinker is one of the few.
So again, good and bad writing are broad regions on a very big spectrum, and we draw the lines at different places in different contexts. I’m perfectly willing to throw out maybe half or more of Strunk &White. I’m willing to acknowledge that most style guides are mainly applicable to specific publications. The vaunted New Yorker has a style guide abounding in trivial affectations and oddities. Nothing wrong with that; it’s their prerogative and part of their initiative to maintain literary distinction, but it’s not something I would insist everyone has to use or ridicule them for not doing so. But I do believe that there is a substantial body of basic grammatical rules that are important to our language, and though they may well change over time, there is great value in knowing them and respecting them in the here and now of the world that we inhabit.
Absolutely, and I worry I was unclear in my point, earlier.
My point is that their writing had two different audiences:
- Myself.
- Their friends.
If they were trying to impress me with their writing–well, I don’t want to say they failed, because that’s kind of harsh to say about these awesome kids, but they certainly demonstrated areas where I would work with them if I’d remained in the room. Punctuation was at the top of that list. (In fact, I couldn’t help myself with another kid who was in the room and who finished early, and I gave her an impromptu lesson in punctuation and asked her to revise her piece based on that).
But if they were trying to impress their friends with their writing? By all signs they succeeded. Their friends were happy and motivated.
@wolfpup’s insistence on a single metric of “THere’s good writing and bad writing” is a foolish insistence. Instead, the metric varies according to authorial intent and audience reception.
A different example at the opposite end of the spectrum might be helpful.
Part of my job entails bringing guest speakers to talk with kids, and some years back I recruited a county commissioner to talk with my second-graders about his job. He showed up and spoke in complex, grammatically-correct sentences about his job, using phrases like “Commercial zone tax rates” and “county penitentiary.” He was awful. If I could’ve recruited someone else who "ain’t"ed and "y’all"ed and "don’t nobody got time for that"ed their way through a presentation that second-graders could understand, I would’ve gotten that speaker in a heartbeat: their communication would have been objectively better by the only relevant metric.
I find this belief absolutely bizarre. I’ve only taught briefly in US schools, and that was math, so maybe the system is completely different from what I imagine, but from what I have observed language education is highly prescriptivist. Kids are being taught rules, corrected for grammar, etc.
I would assume the illiterate were failed by a school system that didn’t motivate them and didn’t supply sufficient scaffolding for them to learn. And I cannot imagine any changes to the system other than increased resources to individualize learning that would increase literacy. I certainly can’t imagine any changes that would spring from increased “rigour in how we regard language and its importance in effectively being able to communicate with our fellow human beings.”
If anything, focus on writing having to conform to rigorous, non intuitive rules is discouraging to struggling learners. And on a country by country basis lower levels of illiteracy appear to be correlated with lower levels of poverty, higher levels of investment in education, higher social mobility, and not with any national fervor for rigor in language.
Once upon a time, there was no such thing as a dictionary or book of grammar. Then, some scholars had the bright idea to create such works (e.g., the Aṣṭādhyāyī has been described as “one of the intellectual wonders of the ancient world.”
These resources are there to facilitate learning a language, not to be “discouraging to struggling learners.” Have you ever learned a language where there were no reference materials at all available, or at the very least sample texts to study (which also serve as an example of the style(s) you should master, especially how to use the words in context)?
I’m not sure what your point is. For one thing we’re not talking about learning a language. I’m sure some of the aforementioned 54% of Americans with a low level of literacy did experience learning English as a second language, but that would still leave a large number who can communicate in English, but not read and write it at a level above sixth grade.
For another there’s a difference between dictionaries and books of grammar existing and … well I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Do you think there are no struggling learners that are discouraged by constantly having their grammar corrected because the expectations are way beyond the level they are at? Or do you think I’m correct about that, but think they’d manage if only they and their teachers knew about books of grammar? Or did you ignore the rest of my post and respond entirely to the last paragraph as if it was suggesting there should be no focus on spelling and grammar in school?
If anyone else is confused, I did not intend to suggest that spelling and grammar should not be the focus in school, what I intended to do was contrast wolfpup’s belief that
against what I consider the observable fact that kids who are still struggling with reading and writing in middle school and high school are discouraged if the focus on spelling and grammar isn’t relaxed and adapted to the level they are at.
I find this akin to demanding rigor from singing or dancing. Yes, there are standards for those who enter some professions. And, some people might aspire to meet those standards for personal enrichment. But, most people don’t need to.
I agree with your post, including that teachers do correct their students’ work, in some cases quite possibly in a daunting, discouraging way that frustrates them and does more harm than good.
I think that being able to crack open an unabridged dictionary and see a word used in a sentence, or having an explanation of non-intuitive grammatical rules, gives struggling students at least something that may help, compared to being told to just figure it out or they must be stupid (if that happens?). For a major language like English, there are also plenty of dictionaries adapted for learners/young children.
I am not entirely sure what “lack of rigour in how we regard language” means, exactly.
I think, and on this I might be completely wrong, that this requires literacy beyond the sixth grade level.
But when Pinker says “opaque prose”, it seems that he’s not talking about bad grammar, spelling mistakes, awkward punctuation, and eggcorns.
The first chapter of Sense of Style is entitled “Good Writing” and Pinker says:
He then comments on the passages that he quoted:
FWIW, I share your concern about literacy but this thread gives me hope.
Interesting that none of those things require specific standards of grammar or orthography.
Something this thread has gotten me thinking about: what does “the sixth grade level” mean? It’s a prescriptive, not a descriptive, term, or else most sixth graders would be reading at a sixth grade level. So who came up with it, and how?
Genuine question, which I feel like I should really know the answer to.
We have to assume there were actual professional teachers on the committee, and that there was a lot of argument and compromise. As for the result, you can look it up, e.g.
is a fat document which tells us that, among other things,
sixth-grade students should be able to “Cite textual evidence to support an analysis of what the text says explicitly/implicitly and make logical inferences… Determine a theme or central idea of a text and how it is developed by key supporting details over the course of a text; summarize a text… In literary texts, describe how events unfold, as well as how characters respond or change as the plot moves toward a resolution… In informational texts, analyze how individuals, events, and ideas are introduced, relate to each other, and are developed… Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and connotative meanings. Analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning, tone, and mood, including words with multiple meanings… In literary texts, analyze how a particular sentence, paragraph, stanza, chapter, scene, or section fits into the overall structure of a text and how it contributes to the development of theme, central idea, setting, or plot… In informational texts, analyze how a particular sentence, paragraph, chapter, or section fits into the overall structure of a text and how it contributes to the development of theme or central ideas… In literary texts, identify the point of view and explain how it is developed and conveys meaning… In informational texts, explain how an author’s geographic location or culture affects his or her perspective… Compare and contrast how different formats, including print and digital media, contribute to the understanding of a subject… Trace and evaluate the development of an argument and specific claims in texts, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and relevant evidence from claims that are not… Use established criteria in order to evaluate the quality of texts. Make connections to other texts, ideas, cultural perspectives, eras, and personal experiences…”
“Conventions of Academic English/Language for Learning” are on Page 122:
ANCHOR STANDARD L1: Demonstrate command of the conventions of academic English grammar and
usage when writing or speaking.
Core Conventions Skills for Grades 6→8:
• Ensure that pronouns are in the proper case (subjective, objective, and possessive).
• Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts in pronoun number and person.
• Recognize and correct pronouns that have unclear or ambiguous antecedents.
• Explain the function of phrases and clauses in general, as well as in specific sentences.
• Place phrases and clauses within a sentence, recognizing and correcting misplaced and
dangling modifiers.
• Use simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences to signal differing
relationships among ideas.
• Explain the function of verbals (gerunds, participles, infinitives).
• Form and use verbs in the active and passive voice.
• Recognize and correct inappropriate verb shifts.
ANCHOR STANDARD L2:
Demonstrate command of the conventions of academic English capitalization,
punctuation, and spelling when writing.
Core Punctuation and Spelling Skills for Grades 6→8:
• Use punctuation (commas, parentheses, dashes, hyphens) to clarify and enhance writing.
• Use punctuation (comma, ellipsis, dash) to indicate a pause or break.
• Use an ellipsis to indicate an omission.
Got it. Thank you for the clarification.
And it makes me wonder which sorts of contexts and which broader sorts of errors (and “errors”) @wolfpup is actually complaining about?
Published books are mostly edited sufficiently that I doubt they contain errors he’d complain about too much.
Journal articles likely not.
Newspaper and magazine articles? Maybe depending on the specific one. The Economist and the NYT are going to have few errors but some others might. And possibly reasonable to complain as the expectation is that the writer is speaking as a member of the knowledgeable class.
Message boards, Facebook, emails, and other less formal communication from a presumptively educated acquaintance? Maybe.
And there the questions of who the intended audience is, and the unreasonableness of expecting careful, or any, editing, both arise.
Not at all true. Pinker certainly didn’t set out to write a tutorial on grammar; for anyone who needs one of those, there are many such books available, such as this and this. His book is aimed at those who are well beyond such basics. But he makes it clear in his introduction that conformance with the accepted norms of grammar and punctuation is implicitly the minimum requirement for good writing. I’ve cited his first reason for the importance of good writing: comprehension. The second one is given as follows (bolding mine):
[Good writing] earns trust. If readers can see that a writer cares about consistency and accuracy in her prose, they will be reassured that the writer cares about those virtues in conduct they cannot see as easily. Here is how one technology executive explains why he rejects job applications filled with errors of grammar and punctuation: “If it takes someone more than 20 years to notice how to properly use ‘it’s’, then that’s not a learning curve I’m comfortable with.”
The poor quality of such informal communication on social media, Reddit, and the like is merely a symptom of a much larger systemic problem of low literacy that affects both the reading comprehension and writing skills of millions of Americans. The following excerpt from the article I linked previously puts it well (bolding mine):
“This study translates into dollars and cents what the literacy field has known for decades: low literacy prevents millions of Americans from fully participating in our society and our economy as parents, workers and citizens,” said Robinson. “It lies at the core of multigenerational cycles of poverty, poor health, and low educational attainment, contributing to the enormous equity gap that exists in our country.”
I’ll add, @DSeid, that your last phrase there is something of a straw man. No one expects perfection in social media or message board postings. Speaking for myself, I expect only a reasonable level of readability, coherent sentences, paragraph breaks, reasonable punctuation, and the like. I expect not to have to put the prose through a mental translation process and struggle with its meaning.
If it lacks the most basic rudiments of normative writing, I will either judge the writer’s credibility accordingly, or not read it at all. Our famous SDMB cornfield abounds in such writing, mostly authored by trolls and crackpots who are no longer with us.
…is often on you. Communication is an active process in which both author and audience construct the bridge of meaning. If the rest of the intended audience catches the meaning just fine, but you’re hung up on nonstandard spelling or “literally” as intensifier, that’s your end of the bridge that’s falling down.
Of course there are times when a post is unreadable by a majority of its intended audience. You’re certainly correct about that, and in those cases the author has failed. But so many of your sneering examples are examples of stuff that don’t seem to bother most posters.