Response to “The Phenomenology of Error” by Joseph M. Williams

     In “The Phenomenology of Error”, Joseph Williams aptly points out that the typical treatment of grammatical errors is far harsher than the error itself merits. He questions why this is so and also questions how the seriousness of the error is determined.  This question is puzzling especially since a group of university professors, after reading a manuscript about the proper treatment of errors, disagreed with each other about which of the errors was serious enough to merit attention.  Add to this the fact that after defining faulty parallelism in his trusted grammar handbook, The Elements of Style, E.B. White committed the error – according to his own definition-- twice in one paragraph.  So, one student paper will be corrected differently by whatever number of “experts” read the paper.  The corrections will be based on a number of factors including the experts’ “emotional investment in defining and condemning error” (155) and the perceived seriousness of the error. This seems an inefficient approach if our goal is to improve student writing.  It also seems an extremely prescriptive treatment of language. 

     Language is constantly transformed by usage especially in diverse populations.  The idea that grammatical rules should stand while linguistic styles, word definition of  and usage and idiomatic expressions change and are adopted into  mainstream vernacular speech is absurd. Just consider how the tech explosion influenced language, we’ve added to the mix verbs like text, upload, download and google. We’ve also layered meanings onto older verbs such as search, surf and scroll. There are also hundreds of new nouns and word combinations that left the world of jargon and entered mainstream language. It seems incongruous to take a descriptive approach with regard to meaning and a prescriptive approach with regard to grammar.

Letter to Reggie Blackwell

37 St Johns Pl.

Brooklyn, NY 11217

September 18, 2014

Reggie Blackwell

Guest Speaker, ENGL C0862

City College of New York, CUNY

Dear Mr. Blackwell:

      Thank you for visiting and sharing your life experiences with the class. As teachers, it’s important we should understand the reasons why students may not succeed in their attempts to acquire formal education. Of course, in theory, we know the reasons. However, it’s always much more powerful when the story comes from a real person who lived the experience.

      I was very impressed with the objectivity with which you told your story. It’s rare that people relate past, perhaps painful, experiences without self-pity but your story didn’t contain even a hint of that. On the contrary, your narration focused on the positive events in your life and emphasized your optimistic outlook. In my opinion, that character trait is extremely important and, perhaps, one of the main reasons that you have ultimately achieved such a high level of formal education. The idea that there’s only one way to be happy is a very limiting perspective and I believe that you, by saying that you were always pretty happy despite somewhat trying circumstances, demonstrated that self-satisfaction and well-being aren’t tied to anything particular that you may achieve. Rather, they are a product of positive interaction with the people in your environment.

      Finally, I applaud your response to one of my classmates’ questions about how your “lack of education” negatively impacted your life. You were able to verbalize, without condescension, the fact that you never lacked education.  Rather, that you hadn’t received the required amount of formal education. I think that people sometimes forget that there’s a whole world of practical experience and knowledge that people acquire over a lifetime. I think that practical knowledge is as important, if not more important, than anything you can ever learn in school. Rather than noting a “lack”, we teachers need to focus on and respect what people do know and then work toward helping them expand their body of knowledge in a more academic direction.  Again, thank you for sharing your story. You have a special gift to share with people who may not have started in the best place. If you continue to share your experiences, I’m sure that you’ll positively impact many lives.

Sincerely,

Caitlin Geoghan

Literacy Narrative

The Red Pony

Response to “Intentions and Revisions” by Nancy Sommers

     Nancy Sommers “Intentions and Revisions” depicts the revision process, as implemented in the composition classroom as a “non-creative act” during which minor points are corrected but nothing of value is added to the writing.  She details a 3 year study between unskilled and skilled writers and discovers that there is a major difference in their evaluation and revision processes.  The unskilled writer seems inhibited by grammatical rules and approaches writing as if it needs to progress in a certain order—like the student, Rita, who rewrote her introduction 6 times and ended up with a result worse than some of the earlier drafts.  Rita clearly understood the importance of the thesis statement but her efforts to craft her opening paragraph actually obscured her argument by adding information unrelated to her thesis. 

     Skilled writers exhibit a different pattern.  Walter, a skilled writer, started with an informal structure that led into an anecdote which contextualized his thesis making it accessible to his audience. He was much more willing to work outside of the boundaries of “correct” writing understanding—from his experience—that the initial writing was a place to explore and experiment with language. 

     I think teachers’ tendency to correct grammar in initial drafts leads students to seek “correctness” above meaning.  Drafts returned to students with grammatical corrections teach them that they always have to turn in polished work rather than that initial drafts are about communicating their ideas and that they are working toward clear expression rather than grammatical accuracy.  Nancy Sommers article illustrates this point exactly and demonstrates how the emphasis on correctness can actually inhibit the growth of student writers.