As
I was grappling with Keith Hjortshoj’s chapter 5 on “Rules and Errors,” I found
this section precisely relatable to being a young scholar as many of us
confront tasks that seem to be categorized as “right” or “wrong.” Immediately,
I found Hjortshoj’s portrayal of the “right,” “wrong,” “always,” and “never,” clever,
as she seemed to confine them into rigid categories that do not bend. As an
academic, it is always a tedious process when answering a prompt, proof
reading, or responding to questions, because it is easy to allow our minds to
slip into that narrow minded perspective of limitations and endless restraints.
I
respect Hjorshoj’s recognition that college professors add to this confusion by
“…maintaining that their students should have learned all of the basics of
writing in high school” (80). Personally, I have come across this a variety of
times as professors and or doctors feel the need to remind their students of
their inferiority due to a grammatical error. Often instructors will make a
specific section of the rubric that automatically will deduct points if the
student engages in “obvious” grammar mishaps. Although, I think there needs to
be a line drawn between penalizing a student for missing a period and making a
careless mistake, I do agree with Hjorshoj’s point that comments such as
“awkward,” “unclear,” and “weak” are too ambiguous to be productive. It is
comments such as these that heighten a writer’s confusion and “undermine” their
efforts of writing correctly and successfully.
In
regards to a solution for this, I found Hjorshoj’s definition on fluency in a
language helpful as she explains it as “…thinking in a language, without having
to translate words or deliberately assemble sentences” (84). With this natural intuition,
if the writer follows this rather than honing in on the machinations of
grammar, one can become dependent on their basic knowledge and depart from this
place.
I
think a lot of us do not trust our own intuition or the knowledge we have
ingrained in our brain since young ages of schooling. Not only do we become
ignorant to what Hjorshoj classifies as “primary knowledge,” but we also become
tainted and or resistant to our ears. Proofreading through our ears is crucial
as we often can recognize when something sounds “off” or “wrong.”
Instead
of strictly abiding by what the author classifies as “false rules,” such as
avoiding first person, leading a sentence with “because” or “although,”
resisting passive voice, I think it is a necessity for the writer to develop a
trust with/in him/herself before engaging in all the specifics of grammatical
issues, therefore initiating a reciprocative/autonomous relationship with
oneself.
Once we see both the power and limitations of "primary knowledge" we carry with us, we can be free of the mummified methods used for decades to teach "correct grammar."
ReplyDeleteThis is what I find so compelling about this week's readings. Grammar can and should be a powerful tool that is fun to use. That's why I have my writers in 216 DELIBERATELY putting two errors into the final drafts after you and Max meet them.
Let them see that language is not rigid but conveys nuance and power when used properly. That includes correct grammar. Let them also learn error by making errors with the same precision that they would employ to "get things right." Thus they'll learn my Pet Peeves as well as those common to many faculty. You rightly note that many of us simply expect you have "have it down" before the first FYS paper.
We assume incorrectly. So why not use grammar as a way to learn how to appeal to audiences who are demanding and persuade them?