Grammarians Gonna' Hate

I hate grammar (this was my backup title). Throughout college, and a little in my masters program, I got docked points for my inconsistent grammar skillz. While I know that inconsistent grammar use disrupts communication on the page, I would often get frustrated that my misuse of grammar was the first aspect of my papers mentioned instead of my content. Nonetheless, I have come to realize grammar is important, and though I still find it rather repressive (don't write like that, write like this) we live in a world that loves to judge, and grammar is the easiest measure to use when looking for something to critique.

That is why I find these two articles wildly refreshing. First, let me say I have read "The Phenomenology of Error" before in a graduate class on grammar. We discussed the purposes of grammar in the composition classroom, and how it was often used as a blunt instrument to blugeon students with and to demonstrate how far they still had to go to become passable writers. We discussed the imagery of papers with blood red ink spilled across the page in wide swaths. Grammar can be a violent weapon to keep the ivory tower of academia isolated from the world through fear (note: I am being a bit over dramatic). What I like Williams' text is that he exposes the fallacy that grammar often is. When reading a freshman paper, the instructor knows there will be errors, and thus it becomes a scavenger hunt to find as many as possible to reveal to the student how far they have to go. Not all instructors are so sadistic, but some are. Obviously, grammar does not have to operate in such a manner, but what Williams does is reveal the hypocracy by interweaving grammatical "errors" throughout his text. When we read a published article we are not hunting for errors but reading for content, and he challenges us to treat our students with the same respect. I try to do this throughout my classes, and though I still point out glaring errors in grammar because I know other professors will, I do not really do so unless it is pretty much unreadable. My first priority when teaching is to put my red pen aside, and to instead challenge my students to think and communicate brilliant, original thoughts. I pretty much think Williams, particularly this essay, is absolutely brilliant and I really try to practice what he proposes.

"Rhetorical Grammar" was a new text for me, and I think it balances well with Williams. It seems that Micciche's teaching philosophy promotes putting grammar in a new context. Thinking about grammar rhetorically as opposed to a tool for promoting hegemony opens up grammar to critical analysis. I love this idea, but my fear is that it might be too specialized to employ in a one semester composition classroom. It seems that this type of approach, much like "Arguing Differently," requires full and complete commitment for the entirety of the class. An approach like the one Micciche offers would fit perfectly in the upper level grammar class like the one I took in grad school (although it would definitely work for undergrads as well, maybe as a 200 level course). Now the idea of a commonplace book is fantastic. Maybe it was because the author mentioned the Renaissance, but I think having students record quotes that seem significant to them really reinforces critical engagement with texts, even those outside the class. Maybe it is a fantasy, but the thought of my students walking around campus with little moleskins, recording quotes from other classes, readings, film and the media really gets me excited.

Really interesting thoughts all around this week. I look forward to discussion on Thursday (now do I choose an exclamation point to express my excitement, or a period to indicate my resolve)...!