RE: grammar

["Kuhne, David" <D.Kuhne@tcu.edu>]

It still seems to me that if we can't teach writers to use correct
constructions then maybe our "community" needs to take a close look at what
we "really" do.  And no, I'm not joking.  Dave Kuhne

	----------
	From: 	Libby Miles[SMTP:emc@omni.cc.purdue.edu]
	Reply To: 	wcenter@ttacs6.ttu.edu
	Sent: 	Monday, May 04, 1998 3:44 PM
	To: 	Kuhne, David; Kivikko, Mary; Marek, Margaret-Rose; Sherwood,
Steve
	Subject: 	Re: grammar

	I don't want to assume you were serious if this is another example
of
	your "quirky sense of humor."  Whether or not you were joking, your
	comments reflect a fairly common assumption (outside this community,
that
	is) that good usage and grammar are easy to teach, easy to learn.
Three
	counter-arguments, to add to those already posted:

	1.  To use a handbook, you must have enough of a meta-language that
you
	know where to look for a particular rule.  If a writer remembers
there is
	a "if/were" rule, for example, he or she wouldn't be able to find it
in
	most handbooks unless the writer knew the term "subjunctive."  Not
many
	people outside of English departments (and quite a few inside
English
	departments) do know that term.

	2.  There are many, many, many more than a "few" rules in English.
Most
	seem arbitrary and inconsistenly applied to writers who haven't
grown up
	in circumstances in which those rules have been thoroughly engrained
in
	them (due to social class, geography, ethnicity, and other
socio-political
	factors which are often manifested linguistically).

	3.  What communities and cultures consider "good usage and grammar"
is
	situationally, historically, and culturally bound.  It changes --
	sometimes dramatically -- over time and across contexts.  Thus, my
	Great-Aunt Betty, a strict grammarian, would be appalled by the use
of
	"deliverables" in *any* context, whereas my colleagues and I use the
	phrase frequently when referring to our stated purposes in our
writing
	projects.  The singular "they" is more commonly accepted now, as are
	assorted other constructions for getting around gender-neutrality
(like
	s/he, etc.).  Invented words from industry now in everyday usage:
	de-plane, multi-task, prioritize.  All would be considered incorrect
in
	some circles.  But they work fine in their contexts.

	Does this help explain why we don't simply expect all writers to
easily
	learn a few rules and a good handbook?

	Libby

	On Mon, 4 May 1998, Kuhne, David wrote:

	> I find it difficult to understand why we simply don't expect
writers to use
	> correct grammar when it's so easy to learn a few rules or use a
handbook.
	> After all, that's nothing compared to the difficulty of the
"larger" issues
	> such as organization and clear thinking.  If the writer can think
clearly,
	> why shouldn't the writer be expected to conform to good usage and
grammar.
	> 
	> Dave Kuhne
	>