Processing Post Process

The process of reading through Paul Kei Matsuda's paper on Process was painful at best. It was exceedingly difficult just to wade through all of his Squirrel! citations just to get to the gist of his paper. Academic writing style notwithstanding, it was a beast to read. And after all that slogging through it, Matsuda's summation was "How is post-process defined and for what purpose? What conception of process does it invoke? These are some of the questions that need to be considered as we continue to explore the implications of the term post-process (78)." What? I thought that was supposed to be the point of the article in the first place - and we still have to go exploring? Do we have to take all those other guys with us? There's a barge full of them.

Seriously, however, my impression of post-process is close to the one he defines as Atkinson's and Susser (1994), which states that rather than a clean-break approach to a new theory, post-process is "best defined not as a complete theory or a pedagogical approach but as a set of pedagogical practices that can be adapted to any pedagogical approaches (78)." Matsuda goes on to explain further (miraculously managing to avoid the term pedagogical), defining post-process as "the rejection of the dominance of process at the expense of other aspects of writing and writing instruction (78-79)." 

The history of writing instruction held some interesting points for me, particularly in light of my research into prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar instruction, which it parallels. The rejection of the current-traditional rhetoric approach, first tentatively attempted early in the 20th century in an effort to "make composition a humane and intimate discipline (68)", and then full tilt revolution in the later part of the century toward the process product we know and sort of love today. Except that, as with all things humanly created, it did not abruptly change from one style to another universally, it took its time evolving, and I am sure there is a decrepit old English teacher somewhere in Texas who is still fiercely clinging to the old ways. The analogy of those old ways being perceived as caricature rather than reality was an apt one, and as the new ways of post-process eclipse process, the half-truths and misconceptions emerge once more.

I ended the article still rather mystified about what post-process was, so I goggled up another opinion and found one I really liked in Gary Olsen's "Toward a Post-Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion." (here's the link) Olsen agrees with what I think Matsuda said, and eschews writing Theory with a capital "T" for theories, and takes all of the primary discourse parameters out of the writing process. He calls the "rhetoric of assertion" - the thesis/truth at the core of most writing processes - "masculinist, phallogocentric, foundationalist, often essentialist, and, at the very least, limiting (236)." He quotes Jean-Francois Lyotard whose "conception of writing is in contradistinction to the traditional notion of writing as an activity whose objective is to 'master' a subject, to possess it, to pin it down through a discourse of assertion (238)." Olsen cites  a variety of theorists who have "speculate[d] productively about how writing is deeply implicated in structures of power and domination, how writing can never be disconnected from ideology, how writing as traditionally conceived is driven by a discourse of mastery and a rhetoric of assertion (240)."

Those terms and that approach make sense to me in the evolving theories (NOT with a capitol "t") about how to teach writing in an evolving world of letters, but I'm not sure I agree with them entirely. There are aspects of the process writing approach that I think make a lot of sense, as is also true of "current-traditional rhetoric" as defined by Richard Young (Matsuda 70).  In a broad, unscientific way, I would frame post-process as inclusive in terms of all the theories, and open to interpretation and adaptation to suit a narrative purpose. So in the end it seems to be more defined by what it isn't than what it is.

Feedback

Worst Feedback:

• "Wow, this is really good. I wouldn't change anything." (useless)
• "I don't get it." (I asked why) "The words are too big. You should use littler (sic) words." 

Best:

• "The professor told us to never use dictionary definitions verbatim in the text." (given to me in an impromptu peer editing session last semester)
• Narrow the focus (of my literary analysis of a poem) to a single symbol (a professor)
• There's a website for MLA (Purdue Owl)
• It's too analytical. I can't hear your voice in it. (peer editor, last semester)

Grammar In Perspective from PBS

http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/decline/
Wonderful research resource for current and future use.

Fun With Grammar - Faulkner

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0857-nov96/EJ0857Bundrens.pd
Bundrens, Faulkner, and Grammar

Stephen B. Heller
When English Journal asks for the current scoop on teaching grammar, who better to deliver an in-the- trenches message than the very best purveyors of grammatical perjury: the cast of erudite erstwhiles from William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying.

Anse
Goddamned these teeth. As if my new Missus Bundren had anything to do with it. Them ten dollars were rightfully mine, and the hell with Dewey Dell, ’swhat I say ’bout it. If she spent her time out in school ‘stead of pickin’ that cotton with them there Lafe, why I’m quite sure she wouldn’t have ended up in the family way.
Now that I have me a new missus, I plan on giving that girl a right proper education. She’s goin’ to school and learn her some grammar. Writin’ that note to that tomfoolery of a boyfriend. Just what the hell was she hopin’ for? Was there ever a man so defiled? So vilified as me, poor Anse Bundren whose only purpose has been to provide for my family?
See here—I got me the note she wrote right up next to the denture containers. Now just one minute—
I ain’t had it. It’s the female trouble.
Well, hell! No wonder her dumb boyfriend didn’t marry her. She’s got the same word for the direct object and pronoun. What sonofabitch-of-a-boyfriend is goin’ to know how to read this? She needs herself a conjunctive adverb to show cause and effect. See here—
I ain’t had it; consequently, it’s the female trouble.
Either Miss Dewey Dell learns herself some kind of complex sentence writing skills, or she’ll be right sorry for fallacious reasoning. Just how are we supposed to know the “it” of her statement? And this goddamned deconstruction approach can just about wipe my toolbox, so far as I’m concerned. How

am I supposed to equate the vernacular with the universal?
Mind you, I’m a-goin’ to charge Dewey Dell for the time it takes me to send her off to school, and I’m thinkin’ about a percentage of her future earnings for my early retirement.
Was there ever a man so trod upon?

Cash
The rules of grammar:
1. A direct object is like a coffin: it’s the one that signs on the dotted line.
2. A pronoun and a coffin are the same thing. They both take the place of the person you love most.
3. The best spell-check program out there today is called Adze.
4. The best way to remember subject- verb agreement is to remember that the natural balance of a dead body oc- curs somewhere between the head and feet, and probably closer to the head.
5. The perfectability of the human shape, as seen in grammar and a coffin.
6. Keeping your tools.
7. A thesaurus shouldn’t get lost in the water.
8. Breaking your legs.
9. Is no worse than an incomplete sentence.
10. Dialect does not determine the system. We all follow the same manual.

Vardaman
My mother is a sentence diagrammer. The sentence diagrammer is my mother. Does that make my mother a linking verb?

Darl
When my parents conceived me back then is was will be I couldn’t help but consider that there was a logic to the universe and to their future game plan, despite the fact that Addie and Anse had but a handful of positive reflections between them, and despite the real life truth that I was not nor ever could be destined to think in a manner of logic that our universe had beckoned us to. Indeed if I could, could I not have gotten Addie a cab?

Crawling through the overblown river reminded me of that continual stream of sentences that my teachers failed to correct me of, even though they had no idea that the society brutally, infallibly and unmercifully labeled me as unfit for their demands, which was fine so long as we could make it across the goddamned river Jewel knew that the purchase of his horse, in the scheme of things, was only a simple sentence, compared to the compound structure of taking a train to the insane asylum.
But who were are is will be they to judge insanity, for wasn’t it I who dove into the water to retrieve the full-of-holes-coffin that poor Mama had found herself in, as if that accident by the water were a semicolon in her journey towards Jefferson. But my teachers failed to correct me of my habits, and I knew that when I saw Dewey Dell and Lafe by the cotton fields that I never would be able to punctuate again, and it was for this reason that I had to set the barn on fire. How else would the buzzards leave?

Jewel
“Goddamned sonofabitch!” I said to my father, failing to acknowledge the birthright any more than the capitalization of his name. For he had given me his legacy without me deserving it. He had abandoned my mother and sired me by a preacher. The Reverend Whitfield gave new meaning to parallel construction, I reckon.
The horse was my thing. It was my personal pronoun, reflexive verb, and present day gerund living, riding, caressing, holding, owning that horse. And just where did Anse Bundren get it into his comma spliced head to sell off my horse? That horse that I had diagrammed corn stalks for at all hours. And him not even being the man to pass on my birthright. That horse that wouldn’t let the cart get ahead of it across the overflowing river to Jefferson.
But it was the fire. “You Darl!” I shouted not caring a whit for punctuation What gives you the right to set fire to that barn? For Darl’s memory had existed in the pluperfect as much as the future perfect, and Addie’s death did more to disturb that poor run-on boy’s verb tense as much as it did his ability to spell-check. For Darl is was were will be has been never forgiving of the buzzards direct object flying over our reeking mother prep phrase.

Addie
Everyone knows the real reason I plotted against Anse was his inability to diagram sentences. As evidence of my guile, my subterfuge, and my steadfast belief that I, Addie Bundren, had been victimized by the male and hierarchical incestuaries of Yoknapatawpha County—I led them to believe that I was strictly unhappy in marriage, and that this desolation ultimately led to my own willingness to greet my Creator, both under the sheets, behind Anse’s back, and above the clouds—please pardon the use of three prepositional phrases at once.
However, if the truth be known (and I won’t begin a sentence with a conjunctive adverb again), it was my statement, my per- sonal and political message to Anse and his male horde of incomplete sentences. It was my statement against an English language infested by the same bigoted and frustrated male libido that rendered me and all my womenfolk second. Never mind that I could diagram sentences better than any other person for miles on end. Never mind that my son Cash’s grammatical equations to carpentry were as unexciting as beginning every sentence with an article.
Don’t you dare believe a word of Anse Bundren. Him and his kind had converted, had used, had manipulated the tools and science of English grammar as a means of sab- otage against us all.
So it was my guile and deceit and ultimately my legacy that abdicated grammar and my legacy. I gave him a run-on in Darl. I gave him a fragment in Cash. Dewey Dell was the use of passive voice. Vardaman was a misspelling. And my favorite? Jewel. For Jewel was not Anse’s but God’s, and he He he He he He he was my redeemer, my savior, my one who saw that deconstruction of the vernacular could not nor would not violate the sanctity of the language, so long as it was used in fairness.

Anse
Goddamnit! Just how do you spell that word?

Stephen B. Heller teaches at Oak Lawn Community High School in Illinois. His writing has appeared in the Illinois English Bulletin and National Lampoon Magazine.

76

November 1996 

Grammatically Correct

Mary Ehrenworth and Vicki Vinton offer a well-documented, research-based approach to the teaching of writing, and the inclusion of fundamental principles of grammar therein. They begin with an analysis of the power of writing, and language in general, based on the discourse perceptions of (primarily) Lisa Delpit. Language holds power, claims Delpit, and those who master the nuances of the primary discourse of a society have access to all of that culture’s advantages. Communication that falls outside of that sphere of influence has, according to Delpit, less chance of being perceived as effective.
Ehrenworth and Vinton acknowledge that reality, but counter with an affirmation of individual students’ voices – which come from diverse cultural origins. The discussion becomes one of style, manifested in the mechanics of grammar, an analysis of what “proper” means, and further how to achieve it without stripping away the depth and beauty of individual students’ perceptions and insights, which are based on life experiences rather than a gentrified, abstruse and arbitrary code. Students who encounter this rejection of their realities counter with resistance, either overt or covert, and disengage from the learning environment.  Ehrenworth and Vinton acknowledge the resistance and suggest strategies to overcome it.

One of these is story – the students’ own or others – woven into the discourse in a non-threatening way to introduce elements of comprehension without confrontation. By coming in through the backdoor, teachers approach their students with respect for who they are, including their primary discourses, and offer them choices in communication, illustrated in ways they may choose to assimilate rather than resist. They then delve into some strategies for accomplishing this, including some very specific approaches to introduction and assimilation of basic grammar structures. “These are our goals for teaching grammar: to teach knowledge of conventional usage in order to increase power, opportunity, and voice; to teach habits of fluency, inquiry, and experimentation; and to engage students in such a way that this knowledge and these habits are sustaining and flexible (15).” They also include the teaching strategies of direct instruction, inquiry and apprenticeship, and offer concrete examples of implementation.

Laura Micciche’s conclusions echo the awareness of the political implications of grammar, but her analysis dives more deeply into both the historical foundations of dominant discourse “proper” grammar and the means with which to both counter and utilize those realities. She also deals with the ramifications of a “fix it, it’s broken” approach to grammar rather than an animated, organic inclusion of grammar onto all stages of writing. She uses examples from literature to help her (older) students assess the power of grammar when it is used in a variety of ways. Her terms of “emancipatory teaching” and “liberatory principles” are compatible with Ehrenworth and Vinton’s, but her discourse in general is highly politicized and seeks to empower students to use the techniques and realities of empowering grammar to strengthen not only their writing but also their perceptions in life. She advocates conceptual grammar rather than corrective grammar, a proactive rather than punitive approach. She advocates use of a commonplace book in the classroom (and life) for analysis and observations of discourse in a variety of forms. She also discusses audience “This balancing act, which requires careful consideration of self/other relations, is relevant to grammatical choices that writers make because it is part of the conceptual work that we do as writers. We envision and construct an audience through diction, tone, and the selection of examples; and as writers we seek to reach across the space that separates us from our audience, using techniques that engender trust, establish credibility, and sometimes build connection (729).”

Discussion of the “liberatory pedagogy” of the 1960’s and 70’s that removed the direct/prescriptive approach from the teaching of grammar has moved from a strictly educational dialectic to a highly charged political one, and Micciche dissects some of the realities associated with that as well. The dominant leftist perspective which states that emphasizing rudimentary grammar in teaching is wrong is countered with a conservative demand for it.  Both approaches ignore the practical applications of grammar to discourse. An ability to utilize grammar effectively both in analysis and praxis enhances student skills in rhetoric in general – no matter what their political perspectives. Micchiche is very clear about her perspective, and wants students to have the tools they need through rhetorical grammar:

Rhetorical grammar analysis encourages students to view writing as a material social practice in which meaning is actively made, rather than passively relayed or effortlessly produced. The study of rhetorical grammar can demonstrate to students that language does purposeful, consequential work in the world—work that can be learned and applied (716).

Micciche applies this rhetorical approach to literary analysis and composition, building stronger communication and interpretive skills in her students.


Both of these sources offer depth and variety in approach to grammar, but both have in common an important assumption that is likely to be the foundation of the thesis of my research paper:

Grammar is a symbiotic component of effective writing, a structured means by which all writing is created, revised and finally presented in ways that fluently convey the writer’s intent to his or her readers. Grammar does not exist in isolation from the written form, and thus should not be taught that way.

Ehrenworth and Vinton offer essentially a workbook on how to accomplish effective teaching of grammar, so there are definitely skills to be gleaned from and applied from their work. Micciche too offers practical applications, as well as (to me) a highly palatable political perspective. She also uses two of my very favorite authors in her examples, so naturally I assume all of her suggestions are brilliant. The use of literary analysis coupled with meaningful writing exercises provides some immediately practical applications of grammar instruction.

As to how will I use these techniques in the future – that future already began. It so happens that I am a UWM grammar tutor, and I worked with two students today. Little did they know, but they were my (very kind and compliant) guinea pigs. They are studying grammar in isolation through ENG 212. We had a white board and a list of mechanical definitions and derivatives, trying to make concepts click. It was a struggle UNTIL I dropped the sentences we were constructing into context. I had them tell me a story using the subjects, verbs, objects and more that they had chosen to use on our chart. Immediately, they started saying things like “Oh, no, that’s not right,” as they made errors in construction. They could HEAR it in the context of a few interconnected sentences. I could practically see light bulbs going off in their heads. I sent them off later with instructions to play with their grammar, make fun and silly sentences containing an element or two from their unit, and combine them into a few-sentence story. They weren’t elaborate – one was using her dog and the other a pink-spotted giraffe – but they were more real than perfect progressive to them, and they owned them. Hopefully they will start to see the connections and get their rudimentary grammar (verbs, in this case) running on automatic.

Since I am not a real teacher yet, I don’t know which parts of grammar need to stay and which to go (does anyone really need to know the label “perfect progressive”?), but I do know that teaching pure mechanics only works for a select few grammar geeks like me, while most students need contextual clues to grow their grammar skills. I also know that I will be using and citing both of these resources in the paper I am about to write.

(a somewhat unrelated observation: I really have trouble with Lisa Delpit, based on an article of hers from Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook that I analyzed last semester as part of a study of discourse. It is from the Delpit book referenced in Ehrenworth and Vinton's article, Other People's Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom, and in it the author enthusiastically relates that students of color were taught to overcome their outsider status when "teachers put in overtime to ensure that the students were able to live up to their [the teachers'] expectations (549)." Delpit maintains that in order to join the dominant discourse, "teachers...insisted that they must achieve because 'you must do twice as well as white people to be considered half as good' (549)." That assertion may indeed (sadly) be true, but the choice to actively work to change students from who they were into a homogeneous, white version of themselves to fit the dominant discourse rankled me irreparably with its racism. I struggle to forgive Delpit for using it as a teaching model, and it tempers my acceptance of anything she espouses.)

Confessions of A Grammar Nazi Part Two

Grammar and mechanics are the bread and butter of a proof-reading hack like me. They are the spit and polish that turns a routine entry in the field into a viable candidate for the literate blue ribbon. Grammar and its related mechanics provide not only the skeletal structure of a piece of writing, but the outward trim as well. If done correctly, they are invisible. If done poorly, they stick out like a piece of leftover lunch in one's teeth.

I like grammar. Too much. It appeals to the nerd in me and allows me to enjoy the magnificently analytic processes of mathematics with none of those awkward and annoying numbers. The grammar of my youth was as dry as the ancient (even then) dust-coated blackboards of my junior high school, where we stood at the slates in our mini-skirts and bell-bottoms and diagrammed sentence after sentence in creaky, geeky splendor. I loved it.

And so I will extol its virtues once again. Grammar is the interconnecting network of structure and sustenance that brings random words and ideas to life. Without it, all we have is noise.

Why does this topic matter?

Written communication in today's society is a critical component of life, whether it occurs in a thesis or as a treat. Communicating effectively, or not, influences outcomes from getting the right pizza order delivered to convincing someone to effect political change. Writing matters. And the most effective writing utilizes properly formulated grammar, in much the same way that science experiments require precise procedures using proper equipment. Without grammar, writing becomes an unformed mass of unrelated, incomprehensible phonemes. Yet many people believe that today's young communicators have lost the ability to use proper grammar, particularly in electronic communication. How can teachers reclaim a place for grammar in modern teaching? What is the best way to teach young writers grammar?

Some people think that teachers need to revert to "good old fashioned" grammar instruction to accomplish the goal, while others feel that modern students need more relevant instruction. The only thing that seems to be mutually agreed upon is that high school students have weaknesses in the area of grammar instruction.

Argument Summary

How are the elements grammar best implemented in classroom teaching - through integrated learning or in isolation?

Grammar is best taught in combination with a variety of other writing skills, with areas of weakness tweaked along the way. That is to say, a little of both.

The Writing Process Thus Far

The writing process as interpreted through the class thus far has been recursive, as I have found to generally be the case with all of my writing. There is a certain intrinsic process that does involve rather formal steps in writing, like prewriting, arrangement, research, etc, but all of the elements exist in free flowing form, more like a meandering stream encountering a rocky wide spot in the riverbed than a raging river on an undeterred rampage.

So as I start at the beginning with brainstorming (which for me generally happens in the car or other incredibly informal locations), elements of arrangement and style are already creeping into my realm of thought, even in the formulation of what it is I want to write about. The research process reaches out into everything like a tangle of fiber optic cables - I start with an idea but the research redirects it and then the die is reformulated and then the research changes - all with the glittering transparency of interwoven thought.

It is definitely circular, and will continue to be so throughout the process.

Further Research

My search for additional resources was confined to the NCTE “English Journal”, V.85-7, “The Great Debate (Again): Teaching Grammar and Usage”, because it has a wealth of well-researched articles containing both opinion and documentation on precisely the issue I am writing about. http://www.ncte.org/journals/ej/issues/v85-7

In the course of reading one of those articles, I stumbled upon this book, which will be arriving shortly for my library:

The Deluxe Transitive Vampire: The Ultimate Handbook of Grammar for the Innocent, the Eager, and the Doomed by Karen Elizabeth Gordon

It offers a novel (ouch, pardon the pun) approach to grammar teaching, to say the least, and will hopefully provide some useful perspectives. 

I also found the following articles:

“Taking the G-r-r-r Out of Grammar”

Stephen Tchudi and Lee Thomas

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0857-nov96/EJ0857Taking.pdf

“On Not Teaching Grammar”

Ed Vavra

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0857-nov96/EJ0857Not.pdf

“Why Debates about Teaching Grammar and Usage ‘Tweak’ Me Out”

John A. Skretta

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0857-nov96/EJ0857Debates.pdf

“Watch Your Language: Teaching Standard Usage to Resistant and Reluctant Learners”

Mark Larson

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0857-nov96/EJ0857Watch.pdf

“Bundrens, Faulkner, and Grammar”

Stephen B. Heller

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0857-nov96/EJ0857Bundrens.pd

Plus many more. I think that these articles will offer substantiation for my compare/contrast approach, since several do that same thing, with documentation for both sides.

Whoa-oh-oh, it's Magic - Johnson and Style

T.R. Johnson defines style, in “Ancient and Contemporary Compositions That 'Come Alive': Clarity as Pleasure, Sound as Magic,” as a bridge of contact between the writer and the author; a contact that “registers in the text as the absence of ‘micro-fidgets [uncomfortable distractions] in our syntax and diction.’  In short, it registers as highly disciplined style. Indeed, stylistic techniques provide the conduit between self and other. They create and sustain the moment of contact, of connection, of ‘clarity,’ in which the remarks of the author are renewed, made to ‘come alive’ once again for the reader (355-356).” Johnson’s approach to the pleasures of the craft is highly sensual, appealing to the emotions and sensitivities of his writers and readers.

Johnson perceives style as a magical connection between both sides of the writer-reader duality, an ornamentation of communication that creates “dissolution of the boundaries between them (356).”  His list of ornaments is complex and intimidating to beginning writers, but through them a writer could create a rhythmic pulse to text that engages both the writer in progress and his or her eventual reader. Johnson advocates writing processes that dive deep into the “feel” of writing, so that as the writer adds personally significant elements of style, the text conveys not only the literal meaning of the words, but the emotional sound of them. Good writing feels right to writer and reader, according to Johnson, deep down in the experiential core of both beings.

I am torn about many of Johnson’s elements of style. To me, they seemed rather contrived – particularly his penchant for syncresis and its cousin chiasmus. The process of coming up with them would be an intriguing pre-writing process, but as he admitted, early writers plunked them randomly into their texts, diffusing their effectiveness both as a tool of generation and clarity in a text. In fact much of what he proposed sounded ostentatious to me, and I would guess most young writers would have fun playing but be confused about actual implementation of the tools. I found his passion for the mystical feelings of creative process intriguing, but part of me saw classrooms of high school sophomores rolling their eyes. Magic and muse are wondrous concepts, but I remain an application skeptic. I just cannot imagine most high school writers feeling “the generative magic by which words beget more words. Their pleasure…is a residue of the ecstasy of the ancient rhapsodes (359).” I would have been intrigued to see more from his list of thirty terms, which might be useful in a writing class as an “exercise of the day” - just as others use vocabulary “words of the day” so that writers could stretch their stylistic wings. 

Of all the very lyrical methods he proposes, I think the ones I would find most useful in not only my classroom but my own writing are the ones he calls, “focus,” “flow,” “story,” and “rhythmic emphasis.” They made concrete sense to me rather than so much of the rest of his technique, which read to me like a cross between philosophy and alchemy. I know that as an ancient and life-long writer, I already carry a muse and a primitive “double” within me, but I’m not sure how I could convey those concepts to high school students without getting laughed out of the room. 

Style in Handbooks

Warning: This post has a style of enthusiastic personal (rather geeky) exclamation rather than formal academic analysis, and can be revised (using techniques gleaned from the works analyzed herein) if that is more in keeping with the requirements of the exercise.

It was fascinating to see how style was expressed and advocated across more than a century of writing instruction in the three handbooks. I skimmed as best I could, but I did end up getting sucked in more than I had time for, so I am passionately hoping that the dropbox will stay open long enough for me to get back to it and really read through all three of the handbooks. They had so much to offer in all of their different ways that as a future teacher I found them incredibly fascinating.

The Brooks approach surprised me. I would not expect a handbook from 1911 to include, "thinking is more important than the over-emphasis of form," with an admonition not to have students do busy-work grammar corrections but instead move on and practice their grammar with their next essay (which was REALLY interesting to me given the topic of my research paper!). The concept terminology changed across all three handbooks, but they shared a lot of (apparently time-tested) concepts. Brooks used "unity", "coherence", and "emphasis" for essential elements of style; and the "emphasis" aspect was my favorite - "force and vividness - not weak" and "important words in conspicuous positions."

I can't wait for the DKHB text to be published. Talk about style! It is incredibly user-friendly, and popped all sorts of useful terminology and concepts out on the page for assimilation in actual writing and the teaching thereof. A lot of the concepts were there again - clarity, concision, emphasis, coherence, and a new one - engagement, which I think was implied in the Brooks but not overtly stated. Again, I hope it stays up in dropbox so I can reference it as I am writing my own paper. It very clearly delineated all sorts of ways to nuance a paper's style - and make it clearer and thus more effective in intent.

But the Hill was my favorite of the handbooks because of its ancient, pedantic style. What a hoot! I loved the definitions of style: "dry - no beauty", "plain - dry with only essential illustrations", "neat" (Goldilocks finds the perfect chair)", "elegant - more pretentious but avoiding excess, which would degrade", "florid - crowds the expression with superfluous and superficial ornament - excessive, bold, many colors -  the so-called poems of Ossian are this style", and then the (heaven-forbid) "bomBASTic style" (I can almost feel the author's horrified shudder as he writes this) - "such excess of words and ornaments as to become ridiculous." There was an interesting assertion from the author as he proclaimed "The General Law of Style", defining it, from Herbert Spencer's "The Philosophy of Style" as "that form of expression is most excellent which yields its contained idea with the least expenditure of mental power." That approach to writing seems to limit the engagement of the reader, if the point is succinctly made with no initiation of creative process in the reader I would say it would qualify as the unappetizing and beauty-deprived "dry." 

All three handbooks had concepts, definitions and techniques that could be intriguing to work with as I write my paper, and in fact live my life (snark warning). As a life-long writer in a variety of venues it is always in my best interest to acquire an ever-broadening vocabulary, and I have this supercilious advice to follow from Hill:

4. Seek Good Society

One who has the advantage of frequent association with intelligent and cultivated persons, will acquire a good vocabulary without great effort, by paying attention to their language. Low companionship, on the other hand, reveals itself in one's choice and use of words.

(All snark aside, I actually may use a few quotes from the older texts to illustrate historical thinking about grammar. Both of them, but particularly the Hill text, went into great detail on grammar.)

My Definition of Style

My perception of style is based on tone and structure, in other words, how the paper is formulated to match the intended audience. Is it informal, using short, conversational sentences? Or is it formally written, using complex academic language and complicated sentences?

The purpose of the paper defines the style. A research paper would, I think, have a formal structure and tone; vs. a creative piece that flowed poetically and freely to a very different intent. 

I also think even in the formal structures of research papers there are huge variances in style, as we saw earlier between Lindemann and Crowley.

Research, Invention and Question Reformulation

From last week's blog:
Argumentative Research Paper Topic: Grammar in the Twenty-First Century

Thesis: The function of grammar in the modern high school English classroom is a reflection of the society around it, where students live bombarded by stimuli integrated into their existence from a plethora of mediums as they face a wide variety of academic and assessment challenges.  Effective teaching of any concept therefore requires multi-tiered approaches.

Counter-thesis: Grammar should provide the foundation on which writing is built, and basic concepts must be understood before construction of complex sentences can even begin.

This question isn't really formulated as a question, so to take what is there and turn it into one:

Does the teaching of grammar in the twenty-first century require a multi-tiered, integrated classroom approach, or should it be taught in isolation to formulate and strengthen basic concepts?

Further analysis based on last week's "Using Research for Invention":

The question is formulated beyond the constraints of a yes or no question, and thus beyond appropriate techniques for beginning writers, who respond to the yes or no structure by stating opinions and "feelings" about the topic. To answer this question requires some research on both sides of it, so it is also beyond the "second-tier" question from last week's handout, which essentially focused on listing. Therefore it is a third level, complex question requiring research, analysis and a conclusion.

Restating the question based on two approaches:

Comparison/Contrast (Podis):

Does the teaching of grammar in the twenty-first century require a multi-tiered, integrated classroom approach, or should it be taught in isolation to formulate and strengthen basic concepts?

(I think the question is already set up as a comparison/contrast structure)

Appearance and Reality (Podis):

Many in modern society believe that casual electronic communication has destroyed writers' abilities to use grammar effectively, and are calling for a return to fundamental grammar teaching in an isolated context; however, this is precisely what should not be done. Students accustomed to multi-tiered, sensory-integrated environments in every other aspect of their lives need to learn grammar in the same way.

The comparison/contrast model seems to me to direct the tone of the paper to an analysis of teaching techniques on both sides of the question, and then an analysis based on the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches.

The Appearance vs. Reality question skews it more toward societal perceptions, and would require research into how grammar is used outside of the classroom before going back into an analysis of teaching. I think perhaps it is too broad in scope for the length of the paper required.

(Short) Reflection

The discussion tonight on form and arrangement was helpful in terms of sorting through the readings, and I appreciated hearing other people's thoughts on it.  The most helpful part of the discussion tonight was the work with formation of research questions. That's actually where I am with my own research paper. The topic I want to write about is immense, so I need to ask myself the right questions to write an effective paper. Generally, as any of my writing processes continue and I get to the draft stage, I often end up re-writing the thesis statement based on where the paper has taken me. 

In terms of the research paper I have already begun to sort out the research I found this week, and hopefully will begin work on the actual draft soon. If further detours from that process are in the offing - it would be nice to know now! 

Research and Invention - Part Three

Original Question
Why do some people think video games are harmful?

Revised Question:
How does playing of video games impact the academic achievement and/or socialization skills of adolescents?

Original Question

Is the death penalty effective and moral?

Revised Question:

How does the availability of death penalty impact the decisions of jurors in homicide cases?

Using Research Questions for Invention

Simple Question:

Is it right for scientists to create new life forms?


This question merely asks for an opinion, and the writer is free to take it in whatever direction s/he chooses. It could take the form of just stating an opinion without any back-up in facts, just personal opinions, stated for no other reason than to analyze them personally and structure that analysis in a way that the reader determines is effective. No research is needed. Once the writer’s thoughts are organized, then it could become a persuasive piece, where the writer could consider other points of view and counter them. At this point moderate research could be introduced, or the student could just guess what other people might think, or use anecdotal content. This could be a good introduction to writing strategies for early writers.

Complex Question:

What is the effect on the environment from global warming?


This is basically a scientific research paper, and would require some preliminary research before even developing a thesis. The writer would have to gather a large amount of data to support whatever thesis was developed, analyze it for relevance, and then filter the topic down into a reasonable form to write about – it is an extensive topic that could take many directions in discourse.  This question could also lend itself to a persuasive essay, which would require research into points and counter points, again requiring advanced writing skills. However, the topic could be revised to be used with less experienced writers by providing some structural form at the outset. For example, “What are three effects of global warming?” with instructions to write a paragraph (or page) about each.