The
premise of the paper - that a battle is raging - is clear from the outset, but
one must read past the introduction to ascertain why this matters. At that
point it becomes clear that the argument matters, as evidenced by the
statement: "As writing instructors attempt to demystify both the
processes of composition and the complexities of the English language for their
students, rigidity creates roadblocks in both comprehension and function"
(2). Therefore for effective instruction, teachers need to plot a course in the
battle, and the paper offers suggestions how. The conclusion affirms the
relevance of the argument: "Despite the rigid sides taken in the Grammar
Wars, grammar neither exists in isolation from the written form nor buried
without purpose within it. Students should learn instead that power exists in
the skilled manipulation of discourse that comes from both knowledge of grammar
and the practice of it, and perhaps through their writing, a truce in the
Grammar Wars will finally be achieved" (10).
The writer has (tried to) arrange
the writing in line with purpose and audience
The
paper’s audience is presumably educators, administrators or parents who have
been affected by the contemporary public rhetoric surrounding grammar – the
call by some to “return to the basics” vs. those who favor a less rigid
approach. Therefore the arguments for either side need to be presented up
front, explained through examples, and then debunked, affirmed or compromised.
The paper suggests compromise. But first it presents the arguments: “Prescriptivists
believe that certain usages are inherently correct and others inherently
incorrect. And that to promote correct forms is to uphold truth, morality,
excellence and a respect for the best of our civilization.” According to this battle-mode perspective,
Prescriptivists view the tolerance of incorrect forms as encouraging
“relativism, vulgar populism, and the dumbing down of literate culture” (Pinker)
Conversely, Descriptivists, Pinker writes, believe “that norms of correctness
are arbitrary shibboleths of the ruling class, designed to keep the masses in
their place” (1). Examples from both sides follow, and then the conclusion,
which supports the compromise. All have external sources to supplement the
paper’s arguments.
The style effectively supports the
purpose, argument, and reading comprehension
The
style of the paper is formal, but not exceedingly so. It allows some of the
emotionality inherent in the debate to show through, and also connects it to
the reader. For example, “In other words, the language that our society finds
appropriate is based on agreed upon assumptions of what is acceptable and what
is not, and we know the rules not necessarily because they are written down,
but because “that’s how it’s done around here.” Most Milwaukeeans would feel
rather silly saying “Y’all,” and most Southern Americans would have no idea at
all what one was looking for if asked where the “bubbler” was” (2). The
examples cited provide diverse voices as well, from the formality of Delpit’s “forced
to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized sub-skills, but rather within the
context of meaningful communicative endeavors” (7) to the homespun approach of
Mike Greiner, “fix the writing and the grammar will come along” (4), the voices
are varied from formal to conversational, making the topic approachable from
the varied views of the audience.
The
argument and examples work together
There
are arguments to support both sides of the cited debate, from Pinker’s
definitions on the front pages to Skretta and Greiner’s opposing points of
view. There are also sources that provide validation for the compromise model,
from Rauch’s dual approaches to Ehrenworth and Vinton’s examples “thus we plan
for, demonstrate, and coach the habits of [grammar] fluency” (8). Altogether
these examples support the argument well.
All sources are cited appropriately,
in MLA or APA format, in in-text and works cited references.
The
citations are correct both within the text and in the works cited, and were checked
for accuracy through two sources.
There
is evidence of revision (which requires that the writer keep and then turn in
all drafts with the final version).
There are eight drafts, and all the copies are saved for presentation if required. The paper substantially changed from the first draft to the last in both form and purpose.
Given
the revision, the grammar and mechanics are appropriate for the audience and
purpose.
A
criterion you can choose to use:
The
writer took risks in the writing. (If you want this to be part of your own
personal rubric, let me know what risk you want to take in your writing—such as
trying a new style—in order that we can help you with it.)
The risk I took was starting essentially completely over when my perspective changed from absolute descriptivism to the compromise version.
Extra credit
criterion: The writer uses "bubbler" appropriately in the paper.
Most Milwaukeeans would feel rather silly saying, "Y'all," and most Southern Americans would have no idea at all what one was looking for if asked where the "bubbler" was (2)
