The latest Illiteracy

The article “The Latest Illiteracy” written by Jim McCue and Bryan A. Garner in 2009 reveals information about the ongoing decline of illiteracy in the U.K. with regards to its causes and consequences.

Particularly the example of how multiculturalism can have negative impacts on the development of literacy raised questions in my mind as to what degree I can agree with the argumentations of the text. While McCue and Garner point out that the coexistence of various languages within a classroom can lead to a slower pace of learning, especially for native speakers, I strongly have to disagree with multiculturalism being a negative influencer. Rather than being a restriction or an obstacle, I regard the multicultural environment within classrooms as an enriching experience, both for native and non-native speakers. Having various languages from various linguistic families can help students to understand other languages better, particularly when they are confronted with a different language at a later stage in their lives.

However, the author’s argument that literacy and a solid understanding of a language’s structure are fundamental aspects to ‘distinguish one meaning from another’ can be related to our society and language use patterns. In this manner, I agree with the writers as an incorrect use of grammar can lead to misunderstandings and become a burden to communicate efficiently. Among other aspects, McCue and Garner name unemployment, poverty and failure in schools as a consequence of illiteracy. Although written in a rather exaggerated manner, the reader understands that illiteracy can in fact be the catalyst of numerous social problems.

Despite the fact that I agree with literacy being an undeniably important aspect to succeed in life and to understand the world better, I do not agree with the overall prescriptivist approach of the authors. A development and change of both language and language use is a natural phenomenon and trying to stick to past conventions is a conservative and non-progressive approach which I highly oppose.

Examples

Appositive phrase:

"The man, my neighbour, bought a new car."

my neighbour renames the man 

Absolute phrase:

"He looked at me, his hands shaking the whole time."

his hands is the subject/noun
shaking is the participle
the whole time is the modifier
his hands shaking the whole time is the absolute phrase

Participle phrase:

The broken car needed to get repaired as soon as possible.

broken modifies the car

        Why not Only Garlic-Hangers Should be Interested in Grammar

Having read “The Ongoing Struggles of Garlic-Hangers” by Bryan A. Garner, a student might or might not have been convinced of the necessity to consider the major stages of verbal change before using a certain term in the future. A Garlic-Hanger, a “conservative[s] in matters of language” (Garner 2009, p.28) who tries to keep away the evil spirits of illiteracy, certainly will endorse Garner's argumentation that “anyone who aspires to true proficiency with the language should cultivate the habit of assessing words.” (Garner 2009, p.24). To other readers this argumentation could sound rather abstractedly.

A more practical approach is pursued by Dennis Sjolie, a professor in the English department at the University of South Dakota. In the essay “Phrase and Clause Grammar Tactics for the ESL/ELL Writing Classroom” he suggests that knowing about different phrase types, how they are constructed and function within a sentence will serve for a student's writing skills and enhance the quality of her or his written work. The strategy of joining short sentences into longer, more complex ones, can improve the style of a text which will thus be more interesting and professional sounding, Sjolie states (see Sjolie 2006, p.37).

There are three different phrase types considered, i.e. the appositive, participial, and absolute phrase.

Appositive phrase:

• Appositive phrases are used to add information to a sentence by defining the noun which they follow. Several phrases of this type can be linked together.
• A nonessential/ non- restricitve appositive phrase is always separated from the rest of the sentence with comma(s). (An essential/ restrictive appositive phrase specifies the noun closely.)

William, who happens to be a prescriptivist, is writing an essay.

The essay a literary disquisition on garlic-hanging and evil spirits was finished on March 17,2016.

Participial phrase:

• A participial phrase is an adjective phrase that starts with a participle (present or past) which is used to describe simultaneous actions or conditions.
• Participial phrases must be followed by commas when they begin the sentence, but are not preceded by commas when they end the sentence. No commas should be used when the participial phrase contains essential information to understand the subject.
• The phrase can appear at the beginning of a sentence, at the end of a sentence, or between the subject and the verb → Beware: The position of the modified word (subject) is important! It is closest to the participial phrase!

Removing his glasses, William took a break from writing.

William took a break from writing removing his glasses.

The book damaged by water needs to be rewritten.

Frightened of stupidity, prescriptivists like garlic-hanging, a rumour among descriptivists circulates.

WRONG: Disappointed to the point of tears, the paper was examined by William's Professor.

→ The participial phrase modifies the closest noun! Not the paper was disappointed! → “William's Professor” should move right behind the comma!

Absolute phrase:

• An absolute phrase is a modifier (often a present or past participle), modifying entire sentences. Absolute phrases are used when referring to related simultaneous actions or conditions. They describe a manner in which the action of the main clause is performed or explain reasons for it.
• Since absolute phrases are optional in the sentence, they are always set off from the sentence with commas. The phrase can appear at the beginning of a sentence, at the end of a sentence, or between the subject and the verb.

The essay still unwritten, William immediately sat down at his desk after University.

→ (Do not use “being” in formal English in the phrase!)

William started to type and felt a deep relief, closing the weekend with his dearest hobby.

Her glasses cleaned and the pencil ready, the Professor waited for the essay to be delivered.

A writer has to decide whether the use of different phrases might work especially well in a certain context. There is the danger of overusing these structures which would have a negative effect on a text's legibility. Still, the given examples show that sentence combining can lead to a smoother appearance and more clarity in written work.

Knowledge about the phrase types' grammar thus does serve the very practical role of a style refinement tool. By that it could be regarded as one garlic clove Garner might wish for, fearing the evil spirits of illiteracy.

Ironically enough, it has to be said that the desired refinement of expression can only be achieved by writing itself, with mistakes being an inevitable part of the learning process.

Pursuing this approach, the learners of English grammar don't have to be afraid of faults. As Sjolie puts it: “Safe writing allows no room for growth.” (Sjolie 2006, p.39).

Literature:

Garner, Bryan A. “The Ongoing Struggle of Garlic-Hangers.”, ALSC, no. 3, 2009, pp. 20-32.

Purdue University. “Participles.”, www.owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/627/02/

Sjolie, Dennis. “Phrase and Clause Grammar Tactics for the ESL/ELL Writing Classroom”, The English Journal, vol. 95, no. 5, 2006, pp. 35-40.

University of Calgary. “Appositive and Absolute Phrases.” 1998, www.ucalgary.ca/uofc/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_4e.htm#appositive.

University of Illinois. “Style Strategies.” 2008, www.uis.edu/ctl/wp-content/uploads/sites/76/2013/03/StyleStrategies_000.pdf.

What the SNOOT?

The year is 2016 A.D. Standard Written English (SWE) is completely misused by Illiterate Hillbillies. Well, not entirely… One small group of indomitable prescriptivists still hold out against the invaders. And life is not easy for the Hillbillies who garrison their camps of the internet, newspapers, schools and other sources of written or spoken English… The Usage Wars will continue!

Meanwhile, another small group of students at the University of Hamburg is forced to deal with the essay “The Ongoing Struggles of Garlic-Hangers” by Bryan A. Garner from the year 2009. Some students agree, others bang their heads against the wall, and some don't even care… The following blog entry is an approach of the essay's discussion.

Garner strongly disagrees with the concept that “a native speaker of English cannot make a mistake” (Garner 2009, p. 26) which roughly is the idea of descriptivists about language change and language teaching in a nutshell. They welcome aberrations and variations of English as a chance by saying that linguistic change is inevitable. Some teachers put their focus on the appreciation of literature rather than on classical grammar education. Garner compares this attitude towards English with “epidemiologists who get excited about the spread of new viruses” (Garner 2009, p. 22).

He gives three arguments why the belief that native speakers cannot make mistakes is wrong: (1) people who come across a text which is ill-formed will recognize this as ill-formed; (2) native speakers often admit errors in their speech and correct them; (3) if descriptivists are sure that some poor usage is fine, then why do they use only SWE in their publications? (see Garner 2009, p. 27).

But who is Garner addressing with his accusations of using poor English in the first place? The answer is people who are (or who will be) in a position that dictates the usage of (good) SWE. Academics, journalists, lawyers, politicians and others of this kind who are not able to fit the conventions of proper usage make themselves unreliable. That many, if not most students, will never reach such a position seems not to be in Garners mind. However, it is the context that matters. Facebook and Twitter cannot be regarded as basis for education and should not be a reference for good or bad language usage.

So, what do teachers do with students who have not the luxury of a well educated family and who are not able to follow classical grammar education? Would an approach that puts these students in a literary environment by making them read and write a lot be so bad? The world we are living in, as well as the problems of modern society we are facing, has its price but there is no way in turning back. Instead we should look into the future with serenity.

Literature:

Garner, B.A. (2009). The Ongoing Struggle of Garlic-Hangers. Forum: A Publication of the ALSC. The Latest Illiteracy. (Number 3, Spring 2009), 20-32.

On ʺIlliteracy and Other Illsʺ by Jim McCue

While reading Jim McCue’s article ʺIlliteracy and Other Illsʺ about the decline of literacy in modern society, particularly the UK, my feelings were very mixed. While I certainly share his concerns about the evaporation of reading culture, his way of sharing these concerns felt exaggerated and slightly condescending to me.

I agree with the author that the complexity of our thoughts depends on the complexity of the language that we use to express them, and that the limits of my language really are the limits of my world. I also agree that nuances in spelling and expression are vital for precise communication. However, some of his examples seemed nit-picky and the overall tone of the article felt melodramatic. The trend McCue is describing is definitely real and worrying, yet maybe looking for evidence on MySpace isn’t the best idea. I also don’t agree that the decline of grammatical standards is necessarily followed by a decline of moral standards, as he suggests in his introductory paragraph. While I myself don’t fall into the category anymore, comments like ʺmost teenagers’ thoughts have always been banalʺ (p.7) still irritate me. McCue appears to be just another member of an older generation grumbling about the behaviour of a younger generation: a complaint as old as time.

So while I agree with Mr McCue that literacy is indeed an endangered quality that is vital for a functioning society, I am not quite as pessimistic. 

Garner's "Making Peace in the Language Wars"

Making Peace in the Language Wars -  by Bryan A. Garner 

This essay is part of the book „Garners modern American usage“ which was published in 1998 . Since first appearing, the book established itself as the preeminent group to the effective use of English language.  As the title already hints, there seems to be a war within the language or the use of language. Garner describes two „camps“ which are in a sort of a war. On the one side there are the describers who „seek to discover the facts of how native speaker actually use their language“ and on the other side there are the prescribers who „seek to guide users of a language“. Each side thinks their views are the corret and the only way to use or view language. 

While reading this article I tried to figure out to which „camp“ I belong and I have to admit that it was pretty difficult to say „well to be prescriptive has its advantages“ or „looking at language as it is used could help me in my use (usage?) of language“. For me language should  be ones individual decision as Trudgill also describes. Language is a „self-regulating system which can be left to take care of themselves“. So neither prescribers nor describers are needed to take care of language. Language is going to keep changing anyway, so why is it so important to make language users feel uncomfortable by telling them how to use correct English or correcting them afterwards? Learning a language is often linked with emotions. If there is a will to learn „    correct“ English or at least English, I think one shouldn‘t be bothered with prescribers or describers who actually would criticise the use of that language. Of course corretness (eg. use of grammar ) to some extend should be respected but if we would go by what some critics say, this would be an endless cleavage of how to use language intentionally and, in their views, how it should be actually used. 

So „don‘t be afraid to exercise your power of choice“ as Pei states and choose how you want to speak and write before language is being labeled discriminatory.