Craft Notes
Grammar Challenge: Reiterations of Some Explanations in the Now-Unwieldy Comments Section
First, thanks so much to all of you who read/took/RT’d/linked to/commented on the Dave Wallace grammar challenge. I wanted to pay a small, quiet tribute to someone who did a great lot for me, and I am floored by the response. I’m beginning to feel like a broken record in the comments sections, though, as they are increasingly hard to navigate, and many readers have taken similar but separate umbrage with the idea of teaching or testing Standard Written English in the first place. Wallace addresses this in the essay I linked to in the answers post, but as the comments keep rolling in, I want to summarize some of what he taught me about this issue.
So. The quiz was intended to help writing workshop students spot errors w/r/t the current conventions of Standard Written English (SWE). The point is NOT to teach students to lord little rules over their friends; the point is to be more careful writers. And why does knowing the current conventions of SWE help us become careful writers?
Probably the most important reason is to avoid ambiguity. We want to make our meaning clear. Putting modifiers far from what they modify creates extra work for the reader, so we learn to spot this trouble area. Professor Wallace distinguished between good, rich ambiguity (even in grammar–cf the brilliantly dangling modifiers of Barry Hannah) and bad, distracting ambiguity, where we cause our reader to wonder whether we’ve made a calculated nonstandard choice (which is fine as long as our readers can tell) or merely don’t know the current accepted standards are in usage in grammar. He wanted us to avoid the latter kind of ambiguity.
Second, it pays to be consistent in tone and level of formality. A great example here would be the fiction of George Saunders. Many of Saunders’ narrators display various nonstandard narrative choices, amounting even to tics, which enriches our understanding of those characters. If one of those characters all of a sudden used a hyper-correct construction like an expletive that, we would wonder if Saunders made an oversight. But of course that never happens in a Saunders story because he knows the rules and lets his characters break them consistently and meaningfully. This is true even for a nonfiction narrator. Even though we all probably follow or break conventions pretty inconsistently in our everyday speech, it is less distracting for the reader, in most cases, to pick a level of formality and stick with it.
The biggest thing is that, as writers, we’re asking a great deal from our readers in terms of attention and trust. Wallace taught us that we owe it to them to make our prose (this was a prose workshop) as lucid, consistent, and context-appropriate as we can. Mastery of SWE helps us do that, even if we choose — consistently– to break every rule in the book.
Tags: david foster wallace, grammar challenge
[…] crucial error in punctuation, usage, or grammar. Okay go! ANSWERS HERE when you’re ready. And HERE is an explanation of why he took the trouble to teach us these […]
Amy —
Hey, I just realized that my comment signature on my work computer says ‘Muzzy,’ while my comment signature on my laptop says ‘Michael.’ I should fix that, hm? Same email address either way.
So anyway this is Michael (aka Muzzy) writing in to say thanks for the win. And I wouldn’t mind a copy of “Scorch Atlas” for my troubles, if it’s not too much to ask.
Amy —
Hey, I just realized that my comment signature on my work computer says ‘Muzzy,’ while my comment signature on my laptop says ‘Michael.’ I should fix that, hm? Same email address either way.
So anyway this is Michael (aka Muzzy) writing in to say thanks for the win. And I wouldn’t mind a copy of “Scorch Atlas” for my troubles, if it’s not too much to ask.
Ah, gotcha. But your name is not hyperlinked, so I don’t know what your email address is, or your last name, etc. I can get you Scorch Atlas, for sure, if you get your email address to me. Mine is my first and last name at google’s email service.
Ah, gotcha. But your name is not hyperlinked, so I don’t know what your email address is, or your last name, etc. I can get you Scorch Atlas, for sure, if you get your email address to me. Mine is my first and last name at google’s email service.
i sometimes think style is a better term than grammar, but the ambiguity/tone/asking a great deal from our readers are really cool ideas. nicely summarized! i may have more success with these terms.
I think this quiz is badly off base. Most of these sentences are entirely standard. Some of them are a bit informal, but informal is not nonstandard, and there are many degrees of informality. Most of the constructions listed as wrong are actually appropriate even in quite formal writing.
1. He and I hardly see one another.
Both constructions are acceptable with either two or more people, despite the claims of some usage writers to the contrary.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
I agree that this sentence is helped by improved parallelism, but it remains awkward.
3. My brother called to find out if/whether I was over the flu yet.
There is nothing wrong with using “if” in place of “whether”. The word “if” has more than one meaning. It is acceptable even in quite formal contexts such as scientific papers. There is also nothing wrong with “whether or not,” in cases where redundancy is desirable for emphasis.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
You should always consider whether word placement affects clarity, but here it does not. Issues of emphasis and rhythm can make the first form of the sentence preferable. In fact, example Wallace gives actually disproves his point. He has to put special emphasis on the word “fed” to get the listener to accept what he claims is the only correct interpretation of “I only fed the dog.” If the rules of English grammar actually forced the meaning “I only fed the dog, and did nothing else to it”, such an emphasis wouldn’t be required.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
I agree this isn’t a well-written sentence.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
“Whence” and “from whence” are both pretty old fashioned, but both expressions have been in use all along. For a similar construction, to quote the Apostle’s Creed:
…he ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
7. Please spare me your arguments of as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
I agree that “as to” is better here, although I would also accept “for”.
8. She didn’t seem ever to ever stop talking.
It’s important to split infinitives whenever you can get away with it to show that you aren’t a superstitious follower of this ridiculous non-rule.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating irritating.
“Aggravating” has primarily meant “irritating” for some time. If you think it sounds better, you should use it.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s his (or His) resurrection.
Of course, it’s a judgment call whether repetition is needed or not, but I think I agree on this sentence. Using “his” is better than “Christ’s” because it emphasizes that the guy who got resurrected was the same guy who was doing the ministering.
David Foster Wallace was a better writer than I am, but following these rules is not what made the difference.
I think this quiz is badly off base. Most of these sentences are entirely standard. Some of them are a bit informal, but informal is not nonstandard, and there are many degrees of informality. Most of the constructions listed as wrong are actually appropriate even in quite formal writing.
1. He and I hardly see one another.
Both constructions are acceptable with either two or more people, despite the claims of some usage writers to the contrary.
2. I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed “t”s.
I agree that this sentence is helped by improved parallelism, but it remains awkward.
3. My brother called to find out if/whether I was over the flu yet.
There is nothing wrong with using “if” in place of “whether”. The word “if” has more than one meaning. It is acceptable even in quite formal contexts such as scientific papers. There is also nothing wrong with “whether or not,” in cases where redundancy is desirable for emphasis.
4. I only spent six weeks in Napa.
You should always consider whether word placement affects clarity, but here it does not. Issues of emphasis and rhythm can make the first form of the sentence preferable. In fact, example Wallace gives actually disproves his point. He has to put special emphasis on the word “fed” to get the listener to accept what he claims is the only correct interpretation of “I only fed the dog.” If the rules of English grammar actually forced the meaning “I only fed the dog, and did nothing else to it”, such an emphasis wouldn’t be required.
5. In my own mind, I can understand why its implications may be somewhat threatening.
I agree this isn’t a well-written sentence.
6. From whence had his new faith come?
“Whence” and “from whence” are both pretty old fashioned, but both expressions have been in use all along. For a similar construction, to quote the Apostle’s Creed:
…he ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
7. Please spare me your arguments of as to why all religions are unfounded and contrived.
I agree that “as to” is better here, although I would also accept “for”.
8. She didn’t seem ever to ever stop talking.
It’s important to split infinitives whenever you can get away with it to show that you aren’t a superstitious follower of this ridiculous non-rule.
9. As the relationship progressed, I found her facial tic more and more aggravating irritating.
“Aggravating” has primarily meant “irritating” for some time. If you think it sounds better, you should use it.
10. The Book of Mormon gives an account of Christ’s ministry to the Nephites, which allegedly took place soon after Christ’s his (or His) resurrection.
Of course, it’s a judgment call whether repetition is needed or not, but I think I agree on this sentence. Using “his” is better than “Christ’s” because it emphasizes that the guy who got resurrected was the same guy who was doing the ministering.
David Foster Wallace was a better writer than I am, but following these rules is not what made the difference.
“And why does knowing the current conventions of SWE help us become careful writers?
Probably the most important reason is to avoid ambiguity.”
Oh give me a fucking break. Irritating instead of aggravating has nothing to do with “clarity” and “ambiguity”. While your point (his point) about teaching so-called S.W.E. rules is not entirely unworthy of discussion, when you get down to the actual things taught and prescripitivized (aggravate vs. irritate) the farce quickly becomes apparent. Please, don’t be a Wallace in this regard. Check out language log and some thought by linguists and other non anti-scientists. It was atrocious that there was someone Wallace’s age who clung to silly ideas about language, rules, and standards like a fool. However, he really did live pre-internet. It’s 2009 now, it’s not laughable anymore, it’s just sad.
Example. Wallace was fond of Garner. Language Log readers and posters generally prefer the MWDEU. Why? Garner was just some fucking guy. Sometimes he looked for sources and support. Sometimes he just made shit up based on his own personal feelings about langauge and usage. Thanks 16th century. The MWDEU carried to have support for their book. It was a reference book about something that could be extensively researched, almost makes sense to demand there be that kind of work. I guess Garner didn’t agree. Or couldn’t be bothered.
“And why does knowing the current conventions of SWE help us become careful writers?
Probably the most important reason is to avoid ambiguity.”
Oh give me a fucking break. Irritating instead of aggravating has nothing to do with “clarity” and “ambiguity”. While your point (his point) about teaching so-called S.W.E. rules is not entirely unworthy of discussion, when you get down to the actual things taught and prescripitivized (aggravate vs. irritate) the farce quickly becomes apparent. Please, don’t be a Wallace in this regard. Check out language log and some thought by linguists and other non anti-scientists. It was atrocious that there was someone Wallace’s age who clung to silly ideas about language, rules, and standards like a fool. However, he really did live pre-internet. It’s 2009 now, it’s not laughable anymore, it’s just sad.
Example. Wallace was fond of Garner. Language Log readers and posters generally prefer the MWDEU. Why? Garner was just some fucking guy. Sometimes he looked for sources and support. Sometimes he just made shit up based on his own personal feelings about langauge and usage. Thanks 16th century. The MWDEU carried to have support for their book. It was a reference book about something that could be extensively researched, almost makes sense to demand there be that kind of work. I guess Garner didn’t agree. Or couldn’t be bothered.
People are still descriptivists in 2009?
“anti-scientists”
People are still descriptivists in 2009?
“anti-scientists”
People are still descriptivists in 2009?
What is amazing is that there are still educated people who are “prescriptivists“ in 2009. They’re like flat-earthers.The idea of teaching “prescriptivism” in 2009 to a bunch of actual people studying the language (linguists) is like teaching Intelligent Design to Biologists. It hasn’t been cool for a while.
“anti-scientists” – people who aren’t interested / don’t care about science. Language is a thing like anything else. People who care to can study it rigorously, scientifically, methodologically, etc. People who don’t care to, and like to say things about “language” without such concern are properly labeled anti-science.
Ex. Split Infinitives are conrary to the rules of english grammar.
Demonstrably false with the slightest bit of research.
Aggravate instead of irritate will lead to “ambiguity”.
Nonsense. Take a survey to check that. Or look one up online. It’s not remotely true.
People are still descriptivists in 2009?
What is amazing is that there are still educated people who are “prescriptivists“ in 2009. They’re like flat-earthers.The idea of teaching “prescriptivism” in 2009 to a bunch of actual people studying the language (linguists) is like teaching Intelligent Design to Biologists. It hasn’t been cool for a while.
“anti-scientists” – people who aren’t interested / don’t care about science. Language is a thing like anything else. People who care to can study it rigorously, scientifically, methodologically, etc. People who don’t care to, and like to say things about “language” without such concern are properly labeled anti-science.
Ex. Split Infinitives are conrary to the rules of english grammar.
Demonstrably false with the slightest bit of research.
Aggravate instead of irritate will lead to “ambiguity”.
Nonsense. Take a survey to check that. Or look one up online. It’s not remotely true.
lol @ people thinking they are scientists for taking surveys. Guess it shows how spot on Wallace’s critique of the descripitivists is that silly blogs like Language Log still foam at the mouth about him in juvenile ways. The level-headedness of people like Wallace is a nice contrast to the birther-like nuttiness you read on that site.
One’s opinion on how best to teach grammar is not a matter of right or wrong. Language is not chemistry. Where you draw the line at things is a matter of opinion.
Look how silly a statement like this is: “Nonsense. Take a survey to check that. ”
And how would you check that with a survey? What percentage of people surveyed have to use a term a certain way before we consider it valid? What percentage of people surveyed have to have some confusion about a sentence before we agree it causes too much ambiguity? As Wallace astutely points out in his Harper’s piece, the descrpitivist stance is horribly muddled.
lol @ people thinking they are scientists for taking surveys. Guess it shows how spot on Wallace’s critique of the descripitivists is that silly blogs like Language Log still foam at the mouth about him in juvenile ways. The level-headedness of people like Wallace is a nice contrast to the birther-like nuttiness you read on that site.
One’s opinion on how best to teach grammar is not a matter of right or wrong. Language is not chemistry. Where you draw the line at things is a matter of opinion.
Look how silly a statement like this is: “Nonsense. Take a survey to check that. ”
And how would you check that with a survey? What percentage of people surveyed have to use a term a certain way before we consider it valid? What percentage of people surveyed have to have some confusion about a sentence before we agree it causes too much ambiguity? As Wallace astutely points out in his Harper’s piece, the descrpitivist stance is horribly muddled.
Not that descriptivism or prescriptive rules are actually opposites, as some silly people pretend. They both have their place, and their scopes are not identical anymore than creative writing and english lit are.
Not that descriptivism or prescriptive rules are actually opposites, as some silly people pretend. They both have their place, and their scopes are not identical anymore than creative writing and english lit are.
Birther-like nuttiness?
Grammar is not simply a matter of opinion. We can look at the evidence to determine what is grammatical in English and what is not. “One another” has been used to refer to two things for as long as it has been in English. “Aggravate” has been used to mean “annoy” since the 17th century. There’s ample evidence that these uses are part of standard written English. If you teach that these uses are wrong, then you’re teaching your personal preferences, not the conventions of standard written English. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, but your students deserve to be told the difference.
Birther-like nuttiness?
Grammar is not simply a matter of opinion. We can look at the evidence to determine what is grammatical in English and what is not. “One another” has been used to refer to two things for as long as it has been in English. “Aggravate” has been used to mean “annoy” since the 17th century. There’s ample evidence that these uses are part of standard written English. If you teach that these uses are wrong, then you’re teaching your personal preferences, not the conventions of standard written English. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, but your students deserve to be told the difference.
Log — “As Wallace astutely points out in his Harper’s piece, the descriptivist stance is horribly muddled”.
As the man responsible for the “grammar test” currently under discussion, Wallace should hardly be chastising anybody for being muddled. When it comes to the grammar of English, muddled is exactly what prescription is and has been. One only has to look at the gems that have been put forward over the last few hundred years. Or, just have another look at DFW’s ‘grammar test’ and his “answers”.
Log — “Not that descriptivism or prescriptive rules are actually opposites,”
That’s true; where prescriptivism actually gets it right and describes how language actually works, they are one and the same, descriptivism.
Log — “As Wallace astutely points out in his Harper’s piece, the descriptivist stance is horribly muddled”.
As the man responsible for the “grammar test” currently under discussion, Wallace should hardly be chastising anybody for being muddled. When it comes to the grammar of English, muddled is exactly what prescription is and has been. One only has to look at the gems that have been put forward over the last few hundred years. Or, just have another look at DFW’s ‘grammar test’ and his “answers”.
Log — “Not that descriptivism or prescriptive rules are actually opposites,”
That’s true; where prescriptivism actually gets it right and describes how language actually works, they are one and the same, descriptivism.
“That’s true; where prescriptivism actually gets it right and describes how language actually works, they are one and the same, descriptivism.”
Talk about muddled! I think that the thing is that language is used in many different ways. Wallace is quite correct in this. There are many ways to speak English, a billion dialects if you will. That doesn’t mean that a class on English writing should teach all of those ways. A class needs to be prescriptive and teach a kind of writing. Extreme descriptivism would give no preference to educated SWE (the kind you will likely need to employ in your future careers) over any other popular kind. Indeed, many might argue that whatever is spoken the most should be taught… which who knows, these days is probably omg txt speak. Lol.
To teach that would do a great disservice to your students.
“That’s true; where prescriptivism actually gets it right and describes how language actually works, they are one and the same, descriptivism.”
Talk about muddled! I think that the thing is that language is used in many different ways. Wallace is quite correct in this. There are many ways to speak English, a billion dialects if you will. That doesn’t mean that a class on English writing should teach all of those ways. A class needs to be prescriptive and teach a kind of writing. Extreme descriptivism would give no preference to educated SWE (the kind you will likely need to employ in your future careers) over any other popular kind. Indeed, many might argue that whatever is spoken the most should be taught… which who knows, these days is probably omg txt speak. Lol.
To teach that would do a great disservice to your students.
“That doesn’t mean that a class on English writing should teach all of those ways. A class needs to be prescriptive and teach a kind of writing.”
And a muddled and a half back at ya. :-)
There’s absolutely no reason to prescribe anything when teaching any aspect of the English language. That’s ludicrous on its face. Biologists, chemists and physicists don’t make up things about their disciplines, why should grammar teachers?
Most of the rules that govern the more formal registers of speech govern writing. You only have to go back to DFW’s little grammar test to see that it was a subject, for him, better left alone.
I have no doubt that he, as a writer could impart a lot of excellent information to his students, but a reiteration of nonsensical prescriptions is a monumental waste of time for anyone. Accurate descriptions of the real rules that govern language are beneficial. A number of people have pointed these out here.
If he was this anal about these small issues, his classes must have been a real hoot when discussions about substantive grammar issues arose.
“That doesn’t mean that a class on English writing should teach all of those ways. A class needs to be prescriptive and teach a kind of writing.”
And a muddled and a half back at ya. :-)
There’s absolutely no reason to prescribe anything when teaching any aspect of the English language. That’s ludicrous on its face. Biologists, chemists and physicists don’t make up things about their disciplines, why should grammar teachers?
Most of the rules that govern the more formal registers of speech govern writing. You only have to go back to DFW’s little grammar test to see that it was a subject, for him, better left alone.
I have no doubt that he, as a writer could impart a lot of excellent information to his students, but a reiteration of nonsensical prescriptions is a monumental waste of time for anyone. Accurate descriptions of the real rules that govern language are beneficial. A number of people have pointed these out here.
If he was this anal about these small issues, his classes must have been a real hoot when discussions about substantive grammar issues arose.
Lincoln: “I think that the thing is that language is used in many different ways. Wallace is quite correct in this. There are many ways to speak English, a billion dialects if you will. That doesn’t mean that a class on English writing should teach all of those ways.”
No one would ever even suggest that all aspects of language be taught in a writing course. Take a look at any university calendar; after [___}101, there are many courses that specialize.
Wallace didn’t come up with the idea that there are many ways to speak English and I’m quite sure he didn’t come up with the idea that there are a billion dialects.
There is so much to language, so much about language that is truly perplexing and there is need for good minds to figure it out. It truly is a bloody shame that such a good one was wasted on such mindless trivia.
Lincoln: “I think that the thing is that language is used in many different ways. Wallace is quite correct in this. There are many ways to speak English, a billion dialects if you will. That doesn’t mean that a class on English writing should teach all of those ways.”
No one would ever even suggest that all aspects of language be taught in a writing course. Take a look at any university calendar; after [___}101, there are many courses that specialize.
Wallace didn’t come up with the idea that there are many ways to speak English and I’m quite sure he didn’t come up with the idea that there are a billion dialects.
There is so much to language, so much about language that is truly perplexing and there is need for good minds to figure it out. It truly is a bloody shame that such a good one was wasted on such mindless trivia.
First, Dan, David Wallace was not a grammar teacher; he was a creative writing teacher. Also he was not a linguistics teacher. The language goals of creative writing are not and should not always be identical with the goals of using language in everyday life. He was teaching us to recognize certain conventions, many of which are, yes, in contention. But the point is to be able to decide whether, if you know a good percentage of readers might be picky about little rules likes these, you want to simply avoid those possible pitfalls and choose a less contentious usage so you can keep your reader with you. He wanted to equip us to make those decisions ourselves. Even if 98% of people are cool with using aggravate to mean irritate, why not just use “irritate” and keep the other 2% happy as well? Or perhaps we would decide to screw the 2%. The quiz merely tested whether we knew this admittedly minor debate existed in the first place so that, as I keep saying, we could make informed decisions about how or how not to apply the conventions.
Second, you and other commenters seem not to understand that this grammar test was a tiny thing. It took 5 minutes in a 3-hour workshop. That can hardly be a “monumental waste of time” by any reckoning.
And trust me, it wasn’t a waste of time by any stretch. There are plenty of conventions I don’t follow, sure, nor would Wallace have expected anything else. But I can’t see how it’s a bad thing to be conscious of what I’m doing–to have as much information as possible about how different readers would react to the words I choose to use. Nobody has come close in this entire discussion to offering any evidence of a downside of being more conscious in how I’m using words.
First, Dan, David Wallace was not a grammar teacher; he was a creative writing teacher. Also he was not a linguistics teacher. The language goals of creative writing are not and should not always be identical with the goals of using language in everyday life. He was teaching us to recognize certain conventions, many of which are, yes, in contention. But the point is to be able to decide whether, if you know a good percentage of readers might be picky about little rules likes these, you want to simply avoid those possible pitfalls and choose a less contentious usage so you can keep your reader with you. He wanted to equip us to make those decisions ourselves. Even if 98% of people are cool with using aggravate to mean irritate, why not just use “irritate” and keep the other 2% happy as well? Or perhaps we would decide to screw the 2%. The quiz merely tested whether we knew this admittedly minor debate existed in the first place so that, as I keep saying, we could make informed decisions about how or how not to apply the conventions.
Second, you and other commenters seem not to understand that this grammar test was a tiny thing. It took 5 minutes in a 3-hour workshop. That can hardly be a “monumental waste of time” by any reckoning.
And trust me, it wasn’t a waste of time by any stretch. There are plenty of conventions I don’t follow, sure, nor would Wallace have expected anything else. But I can’t see how it’s a bad thing to be conscious of what I’m doing–to have as much information as possible about how different readers would react to the words I choose to use. Nobody has come close in this entire discussion to offering any evidence of a downside of being more conscious in how I’m using words.
You have some fucking nerve saying that David Wallace wasted his talent on his students. I love that people call themselves descriptivists and then get so fucking uptight about the way other people choose to talk about language.
I always appreciate when people read my posts and take the time to comment on them, even if our opinions differ, but you’ve really crossed the line, Dan Smith. You don’t know shit about my teacher. Don’t act like you’re complimenting him and his “good mind” and then put him down. Have a little respect. This is someone I knew, who made a huge difference in my life, and who I now can’t thank. Shame on you.
You have some fucking nerve saying that David Wallace wasted his talent on his students. I love that people call themselves descriptivists and then get so fucking uptight about the way other people choose to talk about language.
I always appreciate when people read my posts and take the time to comment on them, even if our opinions differ, but you’ve really crossed the line, Dan Smith. You don’t know shit about my teacher. Don’t act like you’re complimenting him and his “good mind” and then put him down. Have a little respect. This is someone I knew, who made a huge difference in my life, and who I now can’t thank. Shame on you.
Seems like I should have taken his class, Amy, because I haven’t been able to accurately convey to you what I actually wrote. :-)
I didn’t say he wasted his talent on his students. I specifically said,
“I have no doubt that he, as a writer could impart a lot of excellent information to his students, but a reiteration of nonsensical prescriptions is a monumental waste of time for anyone.”
I said, and I will say again, it was a waste of a brilliant mind to focus on such inane little decorations when he could have easily picked up and discussed with his students the real intricacies of language, the things that truly do make a difference in one’s writing.
I know enough about DWF from reading his contributions to the language debate, his promotion of Bryan Garner, that he knew very little, as you’ve noted, about the workings of language.
You can thank him daily, even hourly, for the things he did give you, but it hardly honors his memory to attempt to bolster what was obviously a major deficiency.
You said: “I love that people call themselves descriptivists and then get so fucking uptight about the way other people choose to talk about language.”
I’d say that everyone gets “uptight” to some degree about people preaching falsehoods. It’s even more disturbing when that person is an academic and he makes no attempt to find out the truth, he simply repeats the canards he learned at his mother’s dinner table.
That’s hardly the way of science. I’m sure that you would agree.
Seems like I should have taken his class, Amy, because I haven’t been able to accurately convey to you what I actually wrote. :-)
I didn’t say he wasted his talent on his students. I specifically said,
“I have no doubt that he, as a writer could impart a lot of excellent information to his students, but a reiteration of nonsensical prescriptions is a monumental waste of time for anyone.”
I said, and I will say again, it was a waste of a brilliant mind to focus on such inane little decorations when he could have easily picked up and discussed with his students the real intricacies of language, the things that truly do make a difference in one’s writing.
I know enough about DWF from reading his contributions to the language debate, his promotion of Bryan Garner, that he knew very little, as you’ve noted, about the workings of language.
You can thank him daily, even hourly, for the things he did give you, but it hardly honors his memory to attempt to bolster what was obviously a major deficiency.
You said: “I love that people call themselves descriptivists and then get so fucking uptight about the way other people choose to talk about language.”
I’d say that everyone gets “uptight” to some degree about people preaching falsehoods. It’s even more disturbing when that person is an academic and he makes no attempt to find out the truth, he simply repeats the canards he learned at his mother’s dinner table.
That’s hardly the way of science. I’m sure that you would agree.
Creative writing teachers make use of the English language so it’s hardly too much to ask that they bring themselves up to speed on the workings of what they teach.
You never ever ever adjust your writing to placate those who think they know of language simply because they’ve memorized their Strunk & White or some other usage manual. It is not the place of a writer to help these folks get their panties untwisted.
Amy: “Nobody has come close in this entire discussion to offering any evidence of a downside of being more conscious in how I’m using words.”
That isn’t at issue. Again, the man was a great writer – according to many and I have no reason to doubt them. The only issue is his dismal [conscious] knowledge of language and grammar. Being a great writer, AGAIN, he obviously must have given a great deal of wonderful, expert, beneficial advice.
Creative writing teachers make use of the English language so it’s hardly too much to ask that they bring themselves up to speed on the workings of what they teach.
You never ever ever adjust your writing to placate those who think they know of language simply because they’ve memorized their Strunk & White or some other usage manual. It is not the place of a writer to help these folks get their panties untwisted.
Amy: “Nobody has come close in this entire discussion to offering any evidence of a downside of being more conscious in how I’m using words.”
That isn’t at issue. Again, the man was a great writer – according to many and I have no reason to doubt them. The only issue is his dismal [conscious] knowledge of language and grammar. Being a great writer, AGAIN, he obviously must have given a great deal of wonderful, expert, beneficial advice.
Amy: The language goals of creative writing are not and should not always be identical with the goals of using language in everyday life.
+++++++++++++++++
There seems to be this widespread idea that Descriptive Grammar only focuses on the informal, the casual, the nonstandard dialects of English and that Prescriptive Grammar does the same on SWE, creative writing, punctuation, etc.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. No descriptive grammarian/linguist/teacher would suggest for a moment that writing and speech are the same. [It’s the prescriptivists that have been demanding that.]
Descriptivists are scientists who study every aspect of language; they actually even use real peoples’ language to determine accurate usage patterns. That’s kind of like a biologist actually studying grizzly bear behavior instead of sitting in a lab making up rules about how bears live.
Go to the library, Amy, others, sit down with “The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language” or “The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English” to see how “you” actually do use language, yes, even when you write, yes, even in the most formal of writing..
Amy: The language goals of creative writing are not and should not always be identical with the goals of using language in everyday life.
+++++++++++++++++
There seems to be this widespread idea that Descriptive Grammar only focuses on the informal, the casual, the nonstandard dialects of English and that Prescriptive Grammar does the same on SWE, creative writing, punctuation, etc.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. No descriptive grammarian/linguist/teacher would suggest for a moment that writing and speech are the same. [It’s the prescriptivists that have been demanding that.]
Descriptivists are scientists who study every aspect of language; they actually even use real peoples’ language to determine accurate usage patterns. That’s kind of like a biologist actually studying grizzly bear behavior instead of sitting in a lab making up rules about how bears live.
Go to the library, Amy, others, sit down with “The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language” or “The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English” to see how “you” actually do use language, yes, even when you write, yes, even in the most formal of writing..
“There’s absolutely no reason to prescribe anything when teaching any aspect of the English language. That’s ludicrous on its face. Biologists, chemists and physicists don’t make up things about their disciplines, why should grammar teachers?”
No offense, but this is a silly argument. English teachers don’t teach linguistics, they teach you how to use language. They teach you how to write an essay. This is not comparable to biology unless biology class was just teaching you how to conduct biology experiments. And guess what? Biologists and chemists do indeed give prescriptive rules on how to conduct chemistry or biology experiments!
“There’s absolutely no reason to prescribe anything when teaching any aspect of the English language. That’s ludicrous on its face. Biologists, chemists and physicists don’t make up things about their disciplines, why should grammar teachers?”
No offense, but this is a silly argument. English teachers don’t teach linguistics, they teach you how to use language. They teach you how to write an essay. This is not comparable to biology unless biology class was just teaching you how to conduct biology experiments. And guess what? Biologists and chemists do indeed give prescriptive rules on how to conduct chemistry or biology experiments!
“No one would ever even suggest that all aspects of language be taught in a writing course. ”
Ugh… right, which means that you can only teach certain things which mean you have to teach a certain style of english, not every style… which means you have to be prescriptive…
“No one would ever even suggest that all aspects of language be taught in a writing course. ”
Ugh… right, which means that you can only teach certain things which mean you have to teach a certain style of english, not every style… which means you have to be prescriptive…
“I’d say that everyone gets “uptight” to some degree about people preaching falsehoods.”
haha, now its a falsehood to have a different way of using language! You seem to be tripping over yourself in here.
“That’s hardly the way of science. I’m sure that you would agree.”
And teaching someone how to write an essay or a story is not “science.” It isn’t science class. The fact that your and various other commentators arguments keep falling back on the word “science” in the context of something that is not science and shouldn’t’ be science is truly confusing.
“I’d say that everyone gets “uptight” to some degree about people preaching falsehoods.”
haha, now its a falsehood to have a different way of using language! You seem to be tripping over yourself in here.
“That’s hardly the way of science. I’m sure that you would agree.”
And teaching someone how to write an essay or a story is not “science.” It isn’t science class. The fact that your and various other commentators arguments keep falling back on the word “science” in the context of something that is not science and shouldn’t’ be science is truly confusing.
Not everything is science. If you haven’t learned this yet, I truly do not know what to tell you.
Not everything is science. If you haven’t learned this yet, I truly do not know what to tell you.
And this is not to say that science is bad. Science is good for some things, bad for others.
Language needs BOTH science and “art”, to use a general term. Teaching style is not a bad thing. It doesn’t counter taking surveys. They both have their place. Just like a fine art class has a place alongside art history class.
Linguistics is not creative writing nor is it composition class. Why is this a hard thing to understand?
(However, I think DFW totally zings you when he makes the point that other sciences don’t just take surveys of what people THINK something does or means. Linguistics is less like someone studying grizzly bears and more like someone quizzing random people on the streets about grizzly bears and deciding whatever they believed becomes fact!)
And this is not to say that science is bad. Science is good for some things, bad for others.
Language needs BOTH science and “art”, to use a general term. Teaching style is not a bad thing. It doesn’t counter taking surveys. They both have their place. Just like a fine art class has a place alongside art history class.
Linguistics is not creative writing nor is it composition class. Why is this a hard thing to understand?
(However, I think DFW totally zings you when he makes the point that other sciences don’t just take surveys of what people THINK something does or means. Linguistics is less like someone studying grizzly bears and more like someone quizzing random people on the streets about grizzly bears and deciding whatever they believed becomes fact!)
Lincoln: (However, I think DFW totally zings you when he makes the point that other sciences don’t just take surveys of what people THINK something does or means.
I think he zinged himself and you too for neither of you seem to understand much about how language is studied. Yet DFW, and you and way too many others think that the opinions of idiots, [Lowth, Brown, Fowler, …] make a rule.
Nobody DOES those other sciences like people do language. In fact only people do language.
Lincoln: Linguistics is less like someone studying grizzly bears and more like someone quizzing random people on the streets about grizzly bears and deciding whatever they believed becomes fact!)
Like I said, Lincoln, you really don’t have a clue about how language is studied. Get up to speed if you want to talk about language, please.
Lincoln: (However, I think DFW totally zings you when he makes the point that other sciences don’t just take surveys of what people THINK something does or means.
I think he zinged himself and you too for neither of you seem to understand much about how language is studied. Yet DFW, and you and way too many others think that the opinions of idiots, [Lowth, Brown, Fowler, …] make a rule.
Nobody DOES those other sciences like people do language. In fact only people do language.
Lincoln: Linguistics is less like someone studying grizzly bears and more like someone quizzing random people on the streets about grizzly bears and deciding whatever they believed becomes fact!)
Like I said, Lincoln, you really don’t have a clue about how language is studied. Get up to speed if you want to talk about language, please.
Lincoln: Language needs BOTH science and “art”, to use a general term. Teaching style is not a bad thing. It doesn’t counter taking surveys. They both have their place.
Indeed they both do have a place. This isn’t an issue, never has been, never needs to be.There’s no reason to register any complaints about those who teach style.
It’s when people make asinine judgments about how language works that they need to be taken to task. It’s when otherwise bright people, even some brilliant people, fail to take the necessary time to bring themselves up to speed on how language works that these issues arise.
Lincoln: Language needs BOTH science and “art”, to use a general term. Teaching style is not a bad thing. It doesn’t counter taking surveys. They both have their place.
Indeed they both do have a place. This isn’t an issue, never has been, never needs to be.There’s no reason to register any complaints about those who teach style.
It’s when people make asinine judgments about how language works that they need to be taken to task. It’s when otherwise bright people, even some brilliant people, fail to take the necessary time to bring themselves up to speed on how language works that these issues arise.
“Nobody DOES those other sciences like people do language. In fact only people do language.”
Which is why constantly talking about biology and chemistry make your argument seem fairly hollow!
“Nobody DOES those other sciences like people do language. In fact only people do language.”
Which is why constantly talking about biology and chemistry make your argument seem fairly hollow!
Irreggardless, I literally think your full of it it if you think alot of misusage equals correctness. Its a week argument.
Irreggardless, I literally think your full of it it if you think alot of misusage equals correctness. Its a week argument.
lawlz
lawlz
Lincoln: Irreggardless, I literally think your full of it it if you think alot of misusage equals correctness. Its a week argument.
That’s why you’re not in charge of deciding these things, Lincoln.You go on in your profound state of ignorance, it’ll make no difference as to how language is used.
Lincoln: Irreggardless, I literally think your full of it it if you think alot of misusage equals correctness. Its a week argument.
That’s why you’re not in charge of deciding these things, Lincoln.You go on in your profound state of ignorance, it’ll make no difference as to how language is used.
Honestly dude, you are just whiffing here.
Honestly dude, you are just whiffing here.
dan i am sorry the teaching slowed down with the recession or whatever but it is nice that you have found something to occupy yr time, i hope i find something like that some day
lincoln he designs tolkein fonts, you are not going to win this one
dan i am sorry the teaching slowed down with the recession or whatever but it is nice that you have found something to occupy yr time, i hope i find something like that some day
lincoln he designs tolkein fonts, you are not going to win this one
Linguists don’t reach decisions about usage by taking surveys about what people think something means. Linguists look at how language is actually used. How people think language should be used is another matter entirely. Of course both can be important, but I think students deserve to be told the difference. A good usage book like Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage does this: it looks at how the language is actually used, and also summarizes the opinions of usage commentators, and lets the reader make up their own mind.
Linguists don’t reach decisions about usage by taking surveys about what people think something means. Linguists look at how language is actually used. How people think language should be used is another matter entirely. Of course both can be important, but I think students deserve to be told the difference. A good usage book like Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage does this: it looks at how the language is actually used, and also summarizes the opinions of usage commentators, and lets the reader make up their own mind.
[…] sure if anyone went there during all the well DFW grammar talk (thanks, Amy), but imagine translating, say, Oblivion. Good that one of Wallace’s German […]
[…] As McDaniel mentions in her followup on the quiz answers, and her second followup explanation, DFW was obsessively concerned over clarity in prose, as well as consistency […]
[…] rather, 20,249 people in the world) decided they wanted in on the DFW Grammar Challenge (part 2, part 3). So what was it that brought the teeming hordes back over our way? Was it Jeremy Schmall’s […]
I think this grammar quiz was very fun. I don’t care if it’s amoral or immoral. Are there other quizzes that are as fun as this one?
I think this grammar quiz was very fun. I don’t care if it’s amoral or immoral. Are there other quizzes that are as fun as this one?