Just finished reading an article in ASCD by Naomi S. Baron called “Are Digital Media Changing Language?” Rather than summarizing the article myself, I’ve included the abstract. Take a moment to read it. I’ll wait.
Are instant messaging and text messaging killing language? The author’s research has found that electronically mediated language is only changing the mechanics of traditional speech and writing in a few minor ways—for example, the incorporation of such acronyms as brb (be right back) and lol (laughing out loud) into everyday language. Of more concern, she writes, is the way the new media may be changing attitudes toward language. Two attitude shifts stand out: (1) a shift away from caring about language rules or consistency; and (2) a tendency to view language not as an opportunity for interpersonal dialog but as a system we can maneuver for individual gain.
Got it? Okay.
A while back I was talking to some colleagues about whether or not grammar was elitist, and I was reminded of that conversation while reading the article.
Lately the issue has been of interest to me in my role as a learning coordinator working with language teachers and English teachers who are very concerned about assessing conventions in their students’ work. I feel that I can write about this with impunity, having been one of those teachers who obsessed over the lack of subject verb agreement in a student’s essay (Argh! “Them” is plural! PLURAL!). And I still break out into a cold sweat when I see improperly used apostrophes (although I am guilty of recently committing the crime of using “it’s” when I meant “its.” I may be on Lynne Truss‘s hit because of it.)
What I’m getting at is this: What is it that makes a piece of writing worth reading? Have you ever set down a book and said “Man, that Atwood sure punctuated the heck out of that book!” ?
(And yes, I momentarily agonized over the punctuation of that sentence and then let it go. And yes, this is not a very good use of parentheses.)
Not likely. That doesn’t mean that punctuation, sentence construction and other conventions are not important to the communication of ideas, but does their contribution to the meaning of a piece of writing warrant the weight they are usually given in an assessment? Unless the teacher is explicitly assessing for conventions because that is what has been explicitly taught, then I say no.
Then why does it happen? I would argue because it is the one aspect of the subject of English that we can distill down to something science-like. There are rules. It is right or it is wrong. It’s one of the few things that we can grade without pausing and considering, “Well, maybe….”
But as Baron’s article points out, many of our grammar “rules” were arbitrarily created in the 18th and 19th centuries. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall correctly, this is a result of the increase in printed texts and a desire for some uniformity in spelling and sentence construction. Prior to that time, there was wide variation in spelling and very little punctuation at all.
I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t teach conventions at all. Right now, if a student were to go to university and take a “whatever” approach to their (subject-verb agreement be damned!) writing, they wouldn’t do very well on their essay. But rules are evolving, and it probably won’t be long before the rules that I followed in essay-writing turn into, well, guidelines.
The other thing to keep in mind is that not all our students are planning on attending university; in fact, most aren’t! Shouldn’t we place the focus of our teaching and assessment on clear expression of carefully developed ideas? Certainly conventions are a part of that, but if a student has perfect punctuation, spelling, and grammar, but no depth or creativity in their writing (doing it again, I know), then that’s a much bigger concern to me than if the opposite were the case.