After reading Hartwell's article, I thought long and hard. I thought to myself... "Can I make some sense, or f ind common ground, with an article that had my blood boiling three sentences in?" The answer is both yes and no.
I have no problem with Hartwell's thesis, that, "for me, the grammar issue was settled atleast twenty years ago with....the teaching of formal grammar has a negligble, or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in composition, even a harmful effect on improvement in writing" (205). I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to different opinions on different subject matter. Such is the nature of being human beings. More so, sometimes these different perspectives can make for englightened reading, especially if the thesis is argued convincingly. Hartwell's problem, therefore, is the way he tries to argue his thesis.
For the most part, I found Hartwell to be particurially condescending to those who believed grammar is an important component of good writing. He labels those who defend the teaching of grammar as, " [having] a model of composition instruction that is rigidly skills centered and rigidly sequential" (208). Hartwell seems to find no middle ground in composition instructions: teachers are either grammar control freaks, or they aren't.
If that wasnt enough, Hartwell really lost me with the identification of someone commited to teaching grammar a "hostile reader". He says he "tr[ies] to think of ways to hammer in the central point of this distinction..." (215). The word choice here is really revealing, and seems to continue with the controlling grammar teacher motif.
Hartwell's main reason for disliking grammar seems to be his belief in the grammar's hindering of the writing process and the creativity within it. He points out a college writing handbook with instructions to test each sentence for completness, make sure each sentence has a subject and predicate, etc. Okay, now, while this make seem to be unnesecary for someone in English 101, we do not know who the book is aimed for. It could be used for a 015 class, ESL classes. What I am trying to say is that I agree that there should not be this level of control in a higher English class. But as an English tutor, I can assure you I have come across many English papers that need help in this area.
What if Hartwell took his own advice? What is he wrote this article without any thought to grammar, usage, coherance, etc. The article could become terribly articulated in these terms. Could we take Hartwell's argument seriously in an essay laden with errors?
Or rather, what is Hartwell wrote his article with this kind of language:
http://icanhascheezburger.com/
(please click link, I tried everything to upload the picture, but to no avail...)
I know this may be a drastic example, but the world as a whole is seeing an increase in "webspeak" "textspeak" and this "lolspeak". If you have time, there is an interesting article on the page I got this from about the evolution of language on the internet
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/05/08/a-special-in-depth-analysis-by-david-mcraney-l337-katz0rz/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I don't know that Hartwell as advocating complete abandonment of grammar, he just takes issue with the way it is taught. But yes, one weakness in his essay is that he doesn't propose a better method, or even acknowledge that his arguement lacks such a solution.
I love that website. I think the "alternative" spelling makes it even more funny - it creats this devilish little voice inside my head.
Post a Comment