Bryson IWA

"Good English and Bad" by Bill Bryson

Pre-reading Exercise
     I remember many grammar lessons throughout high school and even some in college. I struggled with my grammar lessons in 7th grade, and I practiced so much that I've always been pretty good with grammar ever since. But I have followed grammar rules since then out of fear that I was going to be told I was wrong by teachers. As a freshman, Dr. Dutton made us complete a grammar quiz, full of very (or what I consider) obscure grammar rules- don't split the infinitive, quote is a verb, quotation is the noun; research is a noun; don't use passive voice, don't have a dangling participle; etc. etc. We had to take the test until we got a certain score on it. I don't follow all these rules, because I feel like I write clearly enough that even if it is not completely "correct", people know what I mean. I think that should be the goal for everyone writing.  The fact that all these rules are drilled into students' heads and only certain ones stick is very telling.

Summary
     In the text "Good English and Bad," Bill Bryson argues that the rules that determine whether English is "good" or "bad" are essentially arbitrary. According to Bryson, English is a very complex language and the various confusing rules about the language are so convoluted as to be meaningless. He argues that there are no real authorities on what constitutes "good" English, there are only opinions. Ultimately, Bryson suggests that, since it is futile to resist the changes that naturally occur in a language, it is also futile to police grammar so rigidly.

Synthesis
     Bryson's article is similar to John Dawkins's piece "Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool" because they both argue against traditional grammar rules, although Dawkins focuses specifically on independent clauses, while Bryson addresses various grammar issues. Dawkins argues that some writers choose grammatical choices (so-called "incorrect" usages) as a rhetorical device- for emphasis, clarity, etc. These specific and purposeful stylistic choices represent what Bryson talks about when he says that language is always changing. Like Dawkins says, the rules for punctuation within sentences change depending on the intended rhetorical situation (also recalls Kantz). Both Dawkins and Bryson seem comfortable with the flexibility of language and grammar rules.

QD
1. Bryson challenges grammar as a construct. Grammar is a construct because there is the belief that writing that is ungrammatical or does not follow rules is "bad" while writing which does adhere to the guidelines is "good." I think he also challenges the notion that language cannot and should not change- that change indicates a "decline of the language" (64). That the rules are the rules-or the conventions are the conventions, and that's that. He gives several examples of "authorities" of grammar/language who make "mistakes:" "one of the few that has" rather than "one of the few that have"; data and media as plural. These are experts, so their writing is presumed to be "good." And yet even they cannot grasp or follow all the complex and myriad grammar rules. Bryson's point is that the English language is too complex to base our determination of good/bad writing on a set of ultimately arbitrary rules.

AE
1. Bryson mentions some words that are blended with words from Greek or Latin roots like "grammarians" and "trusteeship." In modern English I see a lot of words that change into nouns or verbs. That is, a verb with be changed to become a noun  or a noun will be changed into a verb. I use "wiki" as a verb meaning to look something up on wikipedia. The same is done with "google." Of course, Bryson would condone the change, though he does say there should be some resistance to change, to see which changes really deserve it.
3. When Bryson says that language is fluid and democratic, he means that language is constantly in flux. Because rules are arbitrary, not everyone follows them at all times, so change naturally occurs. language is 'democratic' because there is no association or official authority on grammar or language. Thus, while people are conditioned to think a certain way, there is no proof one can point to to say, "this is wrong because so-and-so says so." It is because language is democratic that it is fluid.

MM
noun
verb
adjective
adverb
preposition

These are the main parts of speech I deal with, but I do not consciously think about them when I write. I mostly just make sure my subject and verb agree, that my tenses match, and that I use commas as correctly as I can (I'm still not perfect at this!). I'm sure at one point, knowing the parts of speech of every word of a sentence helped me understand sentence structure better. I suppose the more able you are with grammar, the better you can construct longer, more complex sentences. But that does not make your writing better. Obviously, like Dawkins showed, good writing does not even need to include correct punctuation or other grammar rules.

Thoughts
   I really enjoyed this piece a lot because I find this fascinating, and I really hope my students find it informative and an interesting read as well. I'm eager to discuss with them how language has changed. I think it will be fun for them to discuss some recent slang terms and think about how it relates to the article. I've also already heard them bemoan grammar, so I think they'll like that someone is arguing that it is pretty arbitrary, though I like Bryson's final thought that there have to be some rule. How do we decide what rules to follow and which ones we can kind of ignore?