I love words. I love most words. Some words I dislike because of how they sound or what they mean, or maybe merely how they are spelled or how they look on a page. But I love some words for all of these same reasons. I am interested in precision of speech, and in the ability to perfectly communicate an idea through language. My interest in English stems from this, and is manifested in two ways: literature, and linguistics.
Literature has the power of being written, published, and permanent, and in that way it can form very memorable ways to use words. In literature I enjoy looking at the text and remembering how the words fit together and why they are chosen. In some cases I have read a book so often that I can remember where a word was divided to fit on the page, and in that case, something like “beau-
tiful” becomes part of the passage for me. This, admittedly, is a little extreme. I want to encourage students to read their favorite books and find their favorite words. The best quotes both add to the text and the story, as well as becoming a time capsule of how that author wanted to use language. The best quotes are timeless and use every word to full advantage.
This segues into my interest in linguistics. The etymology of words in particular is interesting to me; how and why is English the way it is? How and why did authors from other generations write? No matter how much I hated it when I was in high school, I think it’s very important to teach vocabulary because having full command of language empowers a speaker or a writer to be as effective as possible in communication. I don’t want to lose any of that variety, specificity, or richness. For this reason I am torn on the issue of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar that I (and presumably most of the rest of the class) studied in ENG 261. As of now I am more of a traditional prescriptivist, because I think people can and should speak and write correctly, but I do not by any means reject the importance of a descriptivist approach, especially now, as technology is permanently changing communication styles and standards. I recognize and accept the inherent tendency for language to change and the necessity of the evolution of language, but I do not think that this needs to stop us from studying and teaching a standard grammar. I do not know or follow perfect grammar rules (though I’ll admit to being the obnoxious person who corrects annoying things in the words of others), but I think that there should be higher expectations for people to use language correctly. I actually have quite a bit to say on this subject of rules and expectations, but for now it suffices to say that I want to explore the current theories on linguistics and grammar in schools. It seems most popular to ignore grammar in high school English instruction, though my mother and other English teachers from her generation are shocked that the trend opposes the rigid grammar instruction of earlier decades. I am interested in refining my view on the subject and deciding what exactly is important to teach, since all even semi-competent students have a fairly strong grasp on the English language already.
Hi Jenny,
This is quite an in-depth introduction. I can see that you are deeply interested in grammar instruction, so I recommend focusing on this for your blog. This topic should yield plenty of articles over the next semester. By the way, I like the way your topic arises from your 261 class: make connections like this is very important.
Be sure to identify the feeds you’ll use to inform your writing and thinking about grammar.
On the technical side of things, I’m not sure about this template, which I find a little hard to read. You might consider something more subtle, but it’s up to you. Then be sure to add a link to Google Reader.
Very nice start so far.
I share your interest in linguistics, which is why I am currently taking ENG 362: History of the English Language as an elective; the required linguistic courses are already done. Interestingly, the course is affirming an idea that I found quite novel when I first heard it: context not only influences meaning–it is meaning. Most of the translation of Old English is done for us in this course, but it’s still amazing how much context helps us predict the meaning of words that disappeared from our language long ago.
For a lot of adolescent readers, the words on the page may as well be written in Old English. Vocabulary lists have their place, but only if they are linked immediately with meaningful contexts. I was talking with a kid at the barber shop the other day. He’s an eighth grader somewhere in Muskegon. His ELA teacher gives his class vocabulary words in sets of five. Each word is accompanied by a short paragraph in which the word is used. The students then have write a paragraph or two in which they use all five vocabulary words on the list. The boy said that it is amazing how much more quickly he is learning vocabulary lists taught in context versus having to memorize them as stand-alone words.
As for grammar, I am reminded of a probably apocryphal story I once heard in church. Supposedly, bank tellers are taught to detect counterfeit money by being permitted to handle only the genuine article for months. After months of touching, seeing, hearing, and smelling the real deal, they can catch a bogus bill on the spot. Whether or not the story is true, it rings true for grammar. Students are going to learn the uber dialects of Standard English by reading Standard English. And here’s where Wilhelm comes in. In my opinion, improved grammar usage by students will naturally improve as more of them become engaged readers, including works written in Standard English.
You’ve picked a neat topic. Have fun!
[...] http://jennnny4.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/an-attempt-to-explain-myself/ [...]
Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is more than I expected for when I found a link on Digg telling that the info here is quite decent. Thanks.