the charlgi'lg pr()fession

Says Who? Teachingand Questioning theRules of Grammar

ANNE CURZAN

ANNE (URZAN is associate professor of

English at the University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, where she also holds an appoint­

ment in the School of Education. Her

primary research areas- include history

of the English language, language and

gender, lexicography, and pedagogy.

[PMLA

ONE WINTER MORNING, THE STUDENT SCANNING CARDS AT THE.

FRONT DESK OF THE UNIVERSITY GYM NOTICED THE "FACULTY" LABEL

on mine and asked which departnlent I was in. I replied that I teachin English. A middle-aged man who checked in behind me chasedme down the hall. When he caught me, he exclaimed with frustra­tion, "English, eh? Well, could you please get students to stop us­ing plural pronouns when they need singular ones? Everyone-they,someone-they. It's just terrible English."

A few weeks after the gym incident, an esteemed senior col­league stopped me in the hallway. She said, «One of my students hadthis footnote in her paper about using 'they' as a singular genericpronoun, and it said that you said that students could do this andreference you." She then said with a look that combined disbelief andsomething close to horror, "You don't really say that, do you?"

In fact, I do. I tell students they may choose not to follow theprescriptive usage rule that forbids treating they as singular as longas they demonstrate audience awareness in explicitly recognizingtheir choice if need be (hence the footnote). I tell students a lot ofother «heretical" things about grammar too. I do so because I believethat students, like all speakers of English, have the right to knowwhere the prescriptive rules of written Standard English come from.I also believe that all speakers have the right to make informed deci­sions about when those rules are appropriate for their writing.

Both the man at the gym and my colleague probably think thatI am abandoning my job as an English teacher. English departmentsare, after all, one of the centers of "language authority," where theprescriptions in usage books and style guides are enforced, if notwritten. As an English teacher, I am, at least in name, one of the"language mavens" that the linguist Steven Pinker writes about-thatloose network of language authorities who, in theory, steer this shipwe call the English language. What kind of English teacher am I tocontradict the prescriptions of language authorities like William Sa­fire and encourage the inclusion of impertinent grammar footnotes?

[ (i;) 2009 BY THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF A,"IERICA ]

124·3 ]

I will argue that we abandon our job asEnglish teachers if we do not ask students toquestion how they are expected to write inschool and other institutions. We must simul­taneously teach the prescriptive grammaticalrules and empower students to think criti­cally about them. It is intellectually dishonestand pedagogically irresponsible to pretendthat written Standard English is above ques­tion-to put it on a pedestal and leave it thereunchallenged and largely unexamined. Wesay to our students) "Question everything.Except Standard English.» That is not fair orin keeping with the kind of critical pedagogythat most of us espouse.

An important caveat: In making thisargument) I am not arguing that we shouldnot teach students Standard English and theprescriptive usage rules of formal) editedacademic prose. Students are often judgedby their control of Standard English and ofspecific usage conventions) particularly intheir writing) and we have a responsibility togive them access to these grammatical andstylistic rules. I am saying that it is unfair toencourage our students to critically questioneverything except the very conventions inwhich they are asked to write.

This piece considers what happens whenwe apply to usage rules and stylistic conven­tions the same kinds of critical questioningthat we encourage with other topics. For ex­ample) who first said that two negatives make apositive (in language) or that he can function asa generic? And why have people believed suchclaims? What happens ifwe open this door andlet students question the status ofStandard En­glish and logic of prescriptive rules?

In making this argument) I am battlingpopular usage books such as Lynne Truss)s run­away best-seller Eats, Shoots and Leaves: TheZero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation) whichconfidently assert that some kinds of Englishare better and some constructions we mightnaturally say or write are wrong. Why do read­ers) including those in English departments)

Anne Curzan

tend to believe Truss) a self-proclaimed non­specialist) over someone like me) a linguist whospecializes in English grammar? I fear that lin­guists have not effectively made the case to En­glish teachers. To paraphrase John McWhorter)if I weren)t a linguist) I might not believe meeither (7). But we must fundamentally rethinkhow we teach grammar in the writing class­room. We and our students should not accept"Because» as an appropriate answer ifa studentasks) "Why do I have to write this way?» Wemust have a better explanation for them.

Defining Grammar

Native speakers of any language "know gram­mar» in the sense that linguists use the term.Descriptive grammar describes what speak­ers actually do-the rules we follow to cre­ate coherent) well-formed utterances. AsEnglish speakers) we know to put articles be­fore nouns) and we know that some singularnouns can be modified by an indefinite article(a book) while others cannot (*a stujf). In En­glish we can grammatically say none ofthem isor none ofthem ,are) even if some usage guidesobject to the sUQject-verb agreement in the lat­ter; but we would not say *none ofthem am inany variety ofAmerican English. These are alldescriptive rules of English grammar) rarelycaptured in usage guides because this knowl­edge is considered too basic and rarely tripsup speakers or writers. In sum) descriptivegrammatical rules capture the grammaticalknowledge that allows speakers to communi­cate systematically and meaningfully.

When most teachers of English refer togrammar) however) they mean prescriptivegrammar or usage rules-often includingpunctuation. Prescriptive grammar refers tothe rules in most grammar or usage booksthat tell writers (and speakers) what theyshould and should not do. It is about languageetiquette ("table manners)) as some linguistsput it)) and more often than not it's what weshouldn)t do: don)t split infinitives) don)t end

Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar

sentences in prepositions, don't use doublenegation, don't use between you and 1. As thisbrief list makes clear, prescriptive rules coverboth Standard English grammatical struc­tures (e.g., how to express negation) and styleissues or how to write "good, effective En­glish" rather than simply Standard English(e.g., where to put a preposition).l For thisreason, we could use the cover term points ofusage to talk about the prescriptive rules ofwritten English typically enforced in writingclassrooms, because some of these points arenot really about grammar at all.

Prescriptive rule making tends to fo­cus on points of variation in the language,whether they arise from differences in dialector expressive style or from language change.There is little variation in how American dia­1ects use articles, and so articles are not cen­tral in English usage guides. However, somenonstandard dialects of American Englishuse "me and _" constructions as subjects,and in the face of this variation, usage guidesprescribe the "_ and I" subject constructionfound in Standard English. Prescriptive rulesabout the "correct" use of the auxiliary verbdo have not been canonized because this con­struction is currently stable in English; usageguides do, however, focus on the "correct" useof can and may because can is expanding itsterritory in present-day English, well into therealm of permission.

The contested use of singular they, high­lighted in the opening anecdotes, provides auseful example of both kinds of grammaticalrules. Current usage manuals typically tellwriters that with a singular generic anteced­ent such as anyone or a student, they shoulduse he or she, avoid any pronoun, or recast thestatement in the plural. Until the 1980s, usageguides generally prescribed he, but there isnow consensus that generic he is sexist. That isthe prescriptive perspective. Despite it, mostspeakers of American English use singularthey (see Newman), including many speakerswho preach against the construction. In con-

[PMLA

versation, most speakers of American Englishwould not notice, let alone object to, singularthey in the utterance "If a student fails the fi­nal exam, they must retake the course." Thatis the descriptive perspective.

This contrast between written usagerules and spoken usage should lead all speak­ers, including students, to the question, Whosaid we can't write they? In this case, thereis a concrete answer: Lindley Murray. At theend of the eighteenth century, Murray, in hisbest-selling English Grammar, took a sentencewith a singular generic they, labeled it an er­ror, and replaced they with he. Subsequentprescriptive grammarians accepted this judg­ment as a rule for correct or good English foralmost two centuries. For several centuriesbefore Murray's grammar, speakers and writ­ers had been using singular generic they, andthey have continued to do so ever since, de­spite the usage guides.2

Why do we as speakers let people likeMurray tell us our use of language is wrong,in writing if not sometimes also in speech?Pinker writes that saying language users' spo­ken grammar is wrong is like telling a whalethat it has the whale song wrong (370). And"wrong" has come to encompass everythingfrom typos to nonstandard grammaticalforms to ineffective style.

Usage rules for formal written Englishoften presuppose the concept of Standard En­glish. Standard English is a slippery term, andmuch ink has been spilled trying to pin downa definition. One common fallback answer issomething like "Walter Cronkite's English"or "BBC English." Or not the English spokenin the South or in New York City.

Standard English, despite the pedestal onwhich we put it (to create an awkwardly for­mal but prescriptively correct construction),is one dialect among many-not the sourceof all the others. It is a dialect that has beenelevated to the standard for social and politi­cal reasons, not because it is grammaticallymore logical or better.

1 24.3 ]

Written Standard English can be easier toidentify than spoken Standard English, whichallows more variation, from accent to syntaxto lexicon. Written Standard English is the va­riety generally used in education, bureaucraticpublications, reference works, newspapers (ex­cept perhaps sports sections), and other formaldocuments. The written standard is the focusof most educational efforts and high-stakestesting, and it does change, but more slowlythan the spoken language. Usage rules oftenfunction as a gatekeeper, slowing the entryof new forms into written Standard English.Some usage rules preserve older forms of spo­ken English in writing. But some usage ruleshave never corresponded particularly well tothe spoken language. We should discuss thesefacts with students as we teach usage rules.

The Stakes

When it comes to language, the stakes arehigh. Language, as J. L. Austin reminds us,is how we do things. Language creates andmaintains our communities. Through lan­guage, we assert our identities. And we judgeothers on language.

Aks for ask? "Ignorant" (people say).Ain't? "Lazy." Double negatives? "Sloppy." I,along with all my linguist colleagues, will as­sert with full confidence that there is noth­ing grammatically wrong, in the descriptivesense, with these constructions. But peoplewho make these responses are not judging theconstructions-they are judging the speakerswho use them.3

In fact, aks predates ask in the historyof English and used to be a literary form.Shouldn't used to be as condemned as ain't.Chaucer used double negatives (as well as axefor ask). How does it happen that we con­demn speakers who use these forms now asignorant, while holding the same forms up asliterary in earlier periods?

Some will argue that language is more ofa choice than other aspects of identity. Yes and

Anne (urzan

no. We can choose to acquire new languagesor language varieties, which we can masterwith differing levels of competence, often de­pending at least in part on how old we are. Butour home language will always be part of ourcognition and, arguably, part of who we are.We grow up speaking the way those in ourhome community speak. For some Englishspeakers, that language is close to StandardEnglish. For others, it is not. For all speak­ers, the home language carries meaning andpower in that community. The linguist Ge­neva Smitherman reminds us, "See, when youlambast the home language that kids bringto school, you ain just dissin dem, you talk­ing about they mommas!" (99). For all speak­ers, the written English they are expected toproduce at school is stylistically, if not gram­matically' different from what they speak. Noone should feel they have to give up what theybring to school in order to acquire a new set ofgrammatical rules.4 The teaching of grammarand usage conventions should follow an addi­tive model-an expansion of students' reper­toires-rather than a replacement model.

Says Who?

Whether they feel they know grammar ornot, English teachers are supposed to upholdprescriptive rules of English usage. Most En­glish teachers rely on the "they" who writeusage guides and dictionaries to tell themwhat these rules are. Teachers may not knowexactly who "they" are, but they tend to be­lieve them anyway. After all, we have a longtradition of prescriptive grammarians tellingus that our habits in the spoken language arewrong and should not be written down, sowhy stop believing them now?

Most English teachers also know onlysome of the many prescriptive usage rules outthere. The enforcement of prescriptive gram­mar is a haphazard enterprise. Everyone haspet peeves (I certainly do) and catches theviolations of the prescriptive rules they know.

873

874

co

Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar

Few if any know all the constructions that"they" have said are wrong or unacceptable.

For example, a good number of Englishteachers might circle hopefully as unaccept­able in the following sentence in a formal pa­per: "Hopefully, the peace talks will lead toa resolution of the year-long conflict." SomeEnglish teachers would undoubtedly catch thesplit infinitive in this sentence: "The diacrit­ics used to formally capture pronunciation indictionaries are different than those used inthe International Phonetic Alphabet." Prob­ably fewer English teachers would identify aproblem with grow in this sentence: "Hyundaimust grow its business in the United States tosurvive." And how many of you caught differ­ent than, used instead of different from, in thesecond sentence? Some teachers feel stronglyabout the prescriptive rule that dictates differ­ent from. So how many of these constructionsare really errors and by whose definition?

To begin with hopefully, prescriptivegrammarians assert that it is wrong to usehopefully as a sentence adverb-to use it tomean "it is hoped" or "I/we hope." Of course,speakers of American English use hopefullythis way all the time. And other sentenceadverbs, such as mercifully or frankly, are ac­ceptable. In the middle of the twentieth cen­tury, however, grammarians latched on tothis relatively new use of hopefully as wrong,because of its ambiguity; and they have hadstriking success with English teachers, al­though not with English as it is spoken.

The usage note in The American HeritageCollege Dictionary on hopefully is illuminatingabout the who and how behind usage rules:

hope.ful.ly (hop/fd-Ie) adv. 1. In a hopeful

manner. 2. Usage Problem It is to be hoped.

USAGE NOTE Writers who use hopefully as asentence adverb, as in Hopefully, the measureswill be adopted, should be aware that the us­age is unacceptable to many critics, includinga large majority of the Usage Panel. But it isnot easy to explain why critics dislike this use

[PMLA

of hapefully. It is justified by analogy to theunexceptionable uses of many other adverbs,as in Mercifully, the play was brief. The wideacceptance of the usage reflects popular rec­ognition of its usefulness; there is no precisesubstitute. Someone who says Hopefully, thetreaty will be ratified makes a hopeful pre­diction about the fate of the treaty, whereassomeone who says I hope (or We hope or It ishoped) the treaty will be ratified expresses abald statement about what is desired. Only thelatter could be continued with a clause suchas but it isn't likely. • Even though the usageis well established, critics appear to have be­come more adamant in their opposition. Only34 percent of the Panel accepted the usage ofhopefully in our 1999 survey, down from 44percent in 1969. By contrast, 82 percent in the1999 survey accepted the comparable use ofmercifully as a sentence adverb. Thus it is notthe use of sentence adverbs per se that bothersthe Panel; rather, the specific use of hopefullyin this way has become a shibboleth.

In other words, prescriptivists are clampingdown on hopefully, making it a shibbolethbetween the highly and less educated. If thiscensure seems based largely on personal pref­erences, that's because it is.

Who is this Usage Panel? It is part of the"they" that writers and English teachers relyon to tell us what we should and should not do.The panel consists of more than two hundredwell-known writers, critics, and scholars. Thefront pages of The American Heritage CollegeDictionary provide a list of their names. It in­cludes writers such as Sherman Alexie, Max­ine Hong Kingston, Annie Dillard, CalvinTrillin, and Pat Conroy; Harold Bloom andHenry Louis Gates, Jr., are on the list; DavidSedaris and Garrison Keillor have a say on us­age, as do Nina Totenberg, Robert Reich, andAntonin Scalia. And as of fall 2006, so do 1.5

Eighty percent of the panel, reject growas a transitive verb, as in "grow its business." Imyselfhave fully accepted grow as a transitiveverb; it would never occur to me to call atten­tion to it in a paper. I would, however, circle

124·3 ]

hopefully. The critical point is that not onlyare prescriptions sometimes about personalpreferences but our awareness of-and opin­ions about-the prescriptions can be highlyindividual as well.

Do speakers ofEnglish or English teachershave to believe or follow the Usage Panel? Thefront matter of The American Heritage CollegeDictionary provides this important reminder:

The Usage Panel should not be thought ofas anacademy empowered to rule on all questions ofdisputed usage. That is an expedient that theEnglish-speaking world has rejected since the18th century, and in a world where English isestablished as the language of a heterogeneousinternational community, the idea that anygroup or individual might arrogate the author­ity to fix standards seems not only illiberal butabsurd.... Ultimately, readers will want tomake up their own minds about each of suchusage issues, but the opinions of the Panel mayprovide a useful point of reference. (xii)

But does anyone read the front matter of dic­tionaries? Do people really believe that giv­ing a group the authority to create languagestandards is not only illiberal but also absurd?A close look at the usage note for hopefullyreveals a fairly descriptive approach to thequestion. But many if not most users of thisreference book probably do not distinguishbetween "is unacceptable to many critics"and "is unacceptable."

None of this critical questioning of the«they" behind usage rules ofwritten StandardEnglish is meant to imply that Standard En­glish is not valuable and should not be taught.A standard variety of a language facilitatescommunication across dialects and provides auseful written medium for publications. Likestandard weights or measurements, it providesa shared form. However, Standard English hasbeen elevated to the status of being more cor­rect than anything else rather than simplybeing a shared standard. As a result, nonstan­dard English becomes substandard, illogical,

Anne (urzan

sloppy, wrong. But it ain't so. I will make thatcase by debunking three myths about Stan­dard English and prescriptive grammar.

First myth: language change involvesthe corruption of the language, and prescrip­tive rules will stop that corruption. All livinglanguages change, and change is not decay­although older speakers often like to blameyounger speakers for it. Prescriptive rulessometimes condemn a new construction:hopefully as a sentence adverb, impact as averb, or anxious to mean «eager." Over time,some of these prescriptions will be abandonedand forgotten, much like Jonathan Swift'seighteenth-century concerns about the vul­garity of the relatively new words mob andbubble. Standard English, like all living lan­guages, is changing. This fact, combined withour own often arbitrary knowledge of usagerules, should make all English teachers waryof «zero-tolerance" policies about grammati-'cal «errors."6 Not that I do not (generally) fol­low prescriptive rules when I write academicarticles or make notes on my students' papers.But I don't have a zero-tolerance policy. I cir­cle questionable constructions, adding a clari­fying note or question, rather than cross themout-which sends a very different message: itis not about the absolute replacement of oneconstruction with another but about makinggrammatical and stylistic choices. I also ac­knowledge for students my own «hypocritical"position, as someone who is fundamentallyinterested in language change but whose job itis to ensure that they control the written con­ventions of Standard English and prescriptiveusage rules in their writing if they choose todo so. In my experience, this position makescomplete sense to students. So I note wherethey are breaking prescriptive rules, but I amcareful about the words right and wrong.

Second myth: prescriptive grammar al­ways makes sense. Some prescriptive conven­tions can usefully clarify ambiguity, but someare relics. For example, English speakers hadbeen splitting infinitives for hundreds of

co

Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar

years before nineteenth-century grammar­ians latched onto this feature as an imperfec­tion in English. Why? The origins of this ruleare not completely known. It may be linked tothe historical privileging of Latin grammar.While English is clearly not Latin, parts ofEnglish prescriptive grammar are still basedon Latin. In Latin, infinitives are one wordand therefore cannot be split. But full infini­tives in English are two words, and users ofEnglish continue to happily split them (as Idid right there). The rule may also reflect thecanonization of an idiosyncratic preference bysome grammarians. In 1998, in a progressivelinguistic move, the Oxford American DeskDictionary rescinded its prohibition againstsplit infinitives. Eleven years later, those whodon't notice split infinitives probably stilldon't notice them, and those who dislike splitinfinitives probably continue to circle themno matter what Oxford says.

Third myth: Standard English is betterthan other varieties of English. Standard En­glish certainly has higher social status. Writ­ten Standard English has a more extensiveformal vocabulary and set of stylistic conven­tions' given its use in formal writing, includ­ing academic writing. But Standard Englishis not structurally better than other varietiesof English. Nonstandard varieties are not il­logical or any less rule-governed, in the de­scriptive sense, than Standard English. Threeexamples usefully demonstrate this point:ain't, multiple negatives, and hisself.

The use of ain't is condemned as igno­rant, uneducated, and worse. Why is ain'tconsidered so much worse than, say, don't orcan't? The word first appeared at the end ofthe seventeenth century as an't, a contractedform of am not and are not. In 1781 JohnWitherspoon condemned a list of "vulgarabbreviations," including "an't, can't, han't,don't, should'nt, would'nt, could'nt, &c." (qtd.in "Ain't"). Over time, most of these contrac­tions have redeemed themselves, but not ain't.

Ain't may have been so criticized because its

[PMLA

form does not clearly correspond to the formsthat, with not, make up the contraction (am,is, are, has, have, and in some dialects does,do, and did). However, one could make asimilar point about won't. Ain't also fills a gapin Standard English. In Standard English,speakers accept aren't I? as grammatical. Howin the world is aren't I? more grammatical­or logical, for that matter-than ain't I?7

Multiple negatives used to be standard inmost varieties of English-as they are in manyother languages, such as Spanish and French.Multiple negatives appear in Beowulfand theworks ofChaucer. In the early modern period,some varieties of English, including the varietythat became Standard English, came to favorconstructions with single negation, but manyvarieties continued to employ multiple nega­tion. The grammarian Robert Lowth, in hisShort Introduction to English Grammar (1763),insisted that double negatives cancel eachother, as they do in some mathematical opera­tions (139). Of course, this is absurd: no onewould interpret '(I can't give you no money" asa speaker's willingness to fork over cash. Butthe notion that double negatives are illogicaland therefore wrong slowly took hold. Thereis nothing grammatically wrong with doublenegatives. In fact, some language commenta­tors even lamented their loss. Fitzedward Hallincludes the following quotation in ModernEnglish (1873): "[I]fwe examine the history ofthe language, we perceive, that, since the dateof the authorized translation of the Bible,­the finest example ofEnglish,-the alterationsthat have taken place have been, generally,for the worse. The double negative has beenabandoned, to the great injury of strength ofexpression" (qtd. in Bailey 241). Most Englishteachers, not to mention most speakers of En­glish I know, are surprised to hear the loss ofthis condemned form lamented.

The reflexive pronoun hisself usefullyillustrates how nonstandard varieties areas rule-governed in the descriptive sense asStandard English. In Standard English, most

1 24.3 ]

reflexive pronouns are formed by the com­bination of a possessive personal pronounand self (myself, yourself, ourselves). However)Standard English is inconsistent in the appli­cation of this rule: himselfand themselves areirregular. In some nonstandard varieties) in­cluding African American English) the samerule (possessive pronoun + self) is followedthroughout the paradigm: myself, yourself,hisself/herself, ourselves) yourselves) theirselves.The internal logic of the nonstandard systemsurpasses that of the standard system.

The question) then) should not be whetherhimselfor hisselfis right. Both are grammati­cal in different dialects of English. Both aremeaningful, and both can be appropriate andeffective in different contexts. Himself is theStandard English form) and as such it will bemore effective in most formal written regis­ters. Knowing this information allows stu­dents to use Standard English as an informedchoice) with a particular audience and pur­pose in mind.

The fact that Standard English and pre­scriptive usage rules are not as easy as rightand wrong is exactly what makes the teachingof grammar and usage interesting. Almosteveryone is interested in how their languageworks) and English teachers do not exploitthis fact enough. If we open up conversa­tions about "who says))) students learn the us­age conventions of written Standard Englishwhile being given the tools to challenge themappropriately. Standard English and prescrip­tive grammar are about who has the socialpower to prescribe and who is silenced in theprocess. If we want to talk about social justiceand diversity in our classrooms) we need totalk about language. It is as pressing an issueas any other we could possibly address.

A Modest Pedagogical Proposal

So now a proposal for moving forward fromthis argument to produce better learning inour classrooms. This proposal aims to ener-

Anne (urzan

gize the teaching ofgrammar (in the prescrip­tive and descriptive senses)-to transform itfrom behavior modification to engaged learn­ing) not only about language but about every­thing else that gets wrapped up in attitudestoward language.

The proposal: Teachers need to educatethemselves about tlze fundamentals oflan­guage and open up genuine conversationin their classes about prescriptive usagerules and grammar more generally.

It is not acceptable for English teachersto remain uninformed about the conven­tions of written Standard English that theyare enforcing. Teachers should know aboutresources such as descriptive grammar books(e.g.) Biber et al.) and dictionaries of usage(e.g.) Merriam-Webster's Dictionary ofEnglishUsage)) which provide the kind of informa­tion described in the grammatical examplesabove. Teachers should also know about poli­cies such as NCTE)s "Students) Right to TheirOwn Language)) and CCCC)s position paper"The National Language Policy.))

Grammar is not) and should not ever beframed as) a "Because I say so)) subject. Teach­ers in composition and literature classroomsoften state that they want to address issues ofpower and social justice as part of discussionsof literature) writing) and culture. Languagemay work as well as or better than any othertopic to put those issues on the table. Whosays what is correct? Who gets discriminatedagainst? Why do we all acquiesce in such de­cisions? These questions require teachers toacknowledge explicitly their own position inthis hierarchy) and when they do) they openup a space for genuine conversation aboutlanguage rules and choices.

This conversation could take many forms.A discussion of literature could explore howstandard and nonstandard dialects (includingeye-dialect spellings) are used to type charac­ters. A discussion of usage in a compositionclass could become exploratory as students

877

Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar

weigh reasons for adhering to-or breaking­a given written convention, from the techni­calities of punctuation to including hopefullyas a sentence adverb to exploiting the expres­sive power of ain't in written prose. Studentscould be encouraged not simply to refer to abook like Eats, Shoots and Leaves as a guidebut to examine critically the social and moraljudgments that are attached to "incorrect"punctuation usage in it. Or an instructorcould write on a student paper "Come talkto me about this construction" rather thancrossing it out as an error.s

As a result of these conversations, stu­dents can be empowered to make gram­matical as well as rhetorical choices. Thereis a fear that if we open up Standard Englishand usage rules to questioning, students willsuddenly abandon the whole enterprise oflearning them. This seems unlikely. First,students understand what is at stake in theirmastering Standard English and written us­age conventions; they understand the gate­keeping function of this kn~wledge. Second,students are willing to master arbitrary rules.Consider the games that they enjoy. In theend, students are more likely to resist whengrammar or usage rules that contradict theireveryday experience with language are pre­sented as natural, logical, unquestionable,and inherently better than what they alreadyknow. Instructors who approach languagequestions descriptively and critically allowstudents to engage with language intellectu­ally and personally-as they must for lastinglearning. It is more intellectually honest andpedagogically effective to talk critically aboutwhat the grammatical cliche "sounds better"means in different contexts, from interactionswith friends to job interviews, from informale-mail to formal academic papers.

In asking students to question everything,teachers understand that students will not im­mediately overthrow power structures simplyby becoming more aware of how they work.We hope that they will be more informed citi-

[PMLA

zens, stFiving for social justice. Language isno different. In public debates about language,we need more informed citizens, who do notcondemn nonstandard American dialects asbroken English, who understand that studentsdo not need to erase their home languages tolearn Standard English, spoken or written.We need citizens who understand that it is notfair to judge someone as inferior because theyspeak differently or break a prescriptive usagerule. To achieve this, we need teachers whoare willing to think differently about what itmeans to teach English grammar.

English teachers have a responsibility tofoster systematic, informed, and reflectiveknowledge about the English language. Oneplace to start is to encourage critical inquiryabout the rules of language, descriptive andprescriptive, so that students understand whatis at stake in the choices that they make. Weshould encourage our students and ourselvesto ask at every language turn, Says who?

NOTES

1. Sidney Greenbaum usefully differentiates "correct"English and prescriptive grammar from "good" English andeffective style: ','Correct English is conformity to the normsof the standard language. Good English is good use of theresources available in the language. In that sense we can usea non-standard dialect well and we can use the standardlanguage badly. By good English we may mean languageused effectively or aesthetically: language that conveysclearly and appropriately what is intended and languagethat is pleasing to the listener or reader.... By good Englishwe may also mean language used ethically" (17-18).

2. Ann Bodine's groundbreaking article is an excel­lent discussion of the early prescription on singular ge­neric pronoun use. For more on the history of genericpronoun use, see Curzan, Gender Shifts, and Balhorn.

3. Rosina Lippi-Green argues that discriminationbased on language is so common and so accepted that itshould be seen as the "last back door to discrimination"(73). Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee similarly as­sert that "usage rules are the conventions of written En­glish that allow Americans to discriminate against oneanother" (283). Arguing that language is the "last" backdoor to discrimination, as Lippi-Green does, may opti-

124·3 ]

mistically overestimate the extent to which other doorsto discrimination have been closed.

4. Throughout this article, I employ singular genericthey for the reasons explained above.

5. There are several other linguists on the panel, and Ihope that our perspective helpfully counterbalances someof the more prescriptive perspectives that may guide thevoting ofother members. That said, even as a descriptivelyminded linguist, I am put in a difficult position when Iam asked to decide, yes or no, if a particular constructionis acceptable. While I may deem a new construction ac­ceptable, I sometimes know that the majority of my col­leagues do not.,.-and may deem it incorrect in student orprofessional writing. My tendency in such a case is still tochoose acceptable, since the Usage Panel ruling may helpmy colleagues accept the change in the language.

6. Typos and other mistakes that result from the lackof proofreading can be relatively easily distinguishedfrom grammatical and stylistic issues.

7. Students should ask why writers can insert ain't intootherwise standard prose for emphasis without being con­demned. Many prescriptive rules are far from absolute,and stylistic choices can override grammatical proscrip­tions. These are exactly the conversations we should behaving openly with our students in writing classrooms.

8. For more discussion about opening up questions oflanguage authority in the classroom, see Curzan, "Lexi­cography" and "Teaching."

WORKS CITED

"Ain't." Merriam- Webster's Dictionary ofEnglish Usage.

1994 ed. Print.

The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. 2002.Print.

Bailey, Richard W. Images ofEnglish. Ann Arbor: U ofMichigan P, 1991. Print.

Anne (urzan

Balhorn) Mark. "The Rise of Epicene They." Journal ofEn­glish Linguistics 32.4 (2004): 79-104. Print.

Biber) Douglas) et al. Longman Grammar ofSpoken andWritten English. Harlow: Pearson, 1999. Print.

Bodine, Ann. "Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar:Singular They, Sex-Indefinite He and He or She." Lan­guage in Society 4.2 (1975): 129-46. Print.

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetoricsfor Contemporary Students. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn,1999. Print.

Curzan, Anne. Gender Shifts in the History of English.Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.

--. "LeXicography and Questions of Authority in theCollege Classroom." Dictionaries 21 (2000): 90-99.Print.

--. "Teaching the Politics of Standard English.» Jour­nal ofEnglish Linguistics 30.4 (2002): 339-52. Print.

Greenbaum, Sidney. Oxford English Grammar. London:Oxford UP, 1996. Print.

Lippi-Green, Rosina. English with an Accent: Language,Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States.London: Routledge, 1997. Print.

Lowth, Robert. A Short Introduction to English Gram­mar, with Critical Notes. London: A. Millar, R. and J.Dodsley, 1763. Print.

McWhorter, John. Word on the Street: Debunking theMyth ofa "Pure" Standard English. Cambridge: Per­seus, 1998. Print.

Newman, Michael. Epicene Pronouns: The Linguistics ofaPrescriptive Problem. New York: Garland, 1997. Print.

Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct. New York: Mor­row, 1994. Print.

Smitherman, Geneva. "Ebonies, King, and Oakland:Some Folk Don't Believe Fat Meat Is Greasy." JournalofEnglish Linguistics 26.2 (1998): 97-107. Print.

Truss, Lynne. Eats, Shoots and Leaves: A Zero ToleranceApproach to Punctuation. New York: Gotham) 2003.Print.

879

May 2009

Volume 124 Number 3

Publications ofthe Modern Language Association ofAmerica

Published six times a year by the association

THE MODERN LANGUAGEASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Organized 1883, Incorporated 1900 ]

Officers for the Year 2009

President: CATHERINE PORTER

State University ofNew York College at CortlandFirst Vice President: SIDONIE SMITH

University ofMichigan, Ann ArborSecond Vice President: RUSSELL A. BERMAN

Stanford UniversityExecutive Director: ROSEMARY G. FEAL

Executive Council

FOR THE TERM ENDING 31 DECEMBER 2009

CHARLES ALTIERI

Univers'ity ofCalifornia, BerkeleyDORIAN F. BELL

University ofCalifornia, IrvineANNE RUGGLES GERE

University ofMichigan, Ann ArborPAULA RABINOWITZ

University ofMinnesota, Twin Cities

FOR THE TERM ENDING 9 JANUARY 2011

CARLOS J. ALONSO

Columbia UniversityJANE HARPER

Tarrant County College, Northeast Campus, TXFRANCIS ABIOLA IRELE

Harvard University

FOR THE TERM ENDING 8 JANUARY 2012

SARA SCOTT ARMENGOT

Rochester Institute of TechnologyGEORGE LEVINE

Rutgers University, New BrunswickLYNNE TATLOCK

Washington UniversityALEXANDRA K. WETTLAUFER

University ofTexas, Austin

FOR THE TERM ENDING 6 JANUARY 2013

JENNIFER CREWE

Columbia University PressKARIN C. RYDING

Georgetown UniversityKATHLEEN WOODWARD

University of Washington, Seattle

Trustees of Invested FundsHERBERT LINDENBERGER

San Francisco, California

MALCOLM B. SMITH (Managing Trustee)

New York, iVew YorkCATHARINE R. STIMPSON

New York, New York

714

[PMLA

PMLA (ISSN 0030-8129) is published six times a year, in January, March, May, September, October,and November, by the Modern Language Association of America. Membership in the association isopen to persons who are professionally interested in the modern languages and literatures. Annual(calendar-year) dues, which include subscription to PMLA, are based on members' incomes and aregraduated as follows: student members (seven years maximum), $20; new regular members (first year),$35; regular members (income under $15,000), $25; regular members (income $15,000-$20,000), $40;regular members (income $20,000-$30,000), $50; regular members (income $30,000-$40,000), $65; reg­ular members (income $40,000-$50,000), $75; regular members (income $50,000-$60,000), $85; regu­lar members (income $60,000-$70,000), $95; regular members (income $70,000-$80,000), $105; regularmembers (income $80,000-$100,000), $125; regular members (income $100,000-$120,000), $145; regu­lar members (income $120,000-$140,000), $165; regular members (income over $140,-000), $175; jointmembers (two individuals sharing the same household, who receive one subscription to PMLA but twocopies of all other publications), add $20 to dues category of higher-income member; foreign members,same as regular members (use the American-dollar equivalent to ascertain the dues category). Member­ship applications are available on request and at the MLA Web site (http://www.mla.org/).

For libraries and other institutions, an electronic and print subscription for 2009 is $180, and it in­cludes the electronic and print editions of Profession, the MLA's annual journal of opinion about themodern language profession. An institutional subscription including a bound volume at the end ofthe year is $350, domestic and foreign. Agents deduct four percent as their fee. Claims for undeliveredissues will be honored if they are received within six months of the publication date; thereafter thesingle-issue price will be charged. To order an institutional subscription, call or write the Member andCustomer Services Office of the association (646576-5166; subscrip@mla.org).

Single copies of the January, .March, May, and October issues can be purchased for $12 each; theSeptember (Directory) issue is $50; the November (Program) issue is $35. Issues for the currentyear are available from the Member and Customer Services Office of the association (646 576-5161;bookorders@mla.org).

An online archive of PlvILA issues from 1884 to 2003 is available through 15TOR (http://www.jstor.orgl).Volumes up to 2000 can be obtained on microfilm from National Archive Publishing Company, 300

North Zeeb Road, PO Box 998, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-0998 (800420-6272; http://www.napubco.com/umi.html).

The office of publication and editorial offices are located at 26 Broadway, 3rd floor, New York, NY10004-1789 (646 576-5000; pmlasubmissions@mla.org).

All communications concerning membership, including change-of-address notifications, should besent to the Member and Customer Services Office, MLA, 26 Broadway, 3rd floor, New York, NY 10004­1789 (646 576-5151; membership@mla.org). If a change of address also involves a change of institu­tional affiliation or a new e-mail address, that office should be informed of this fact at the same time.

Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY, and at additional mailing offices.CO 2009 by lbe Modern Language Association of America. All rights reserved. Printed in the United

States of America.MLA and the MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION are trademarks owned by the Modern Lan­

guage Association of America.Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 12-32040. United States Postal Service Number 449-660.POSTMASTER: Send address changes to PMLA, Member and Customer Services Office, MLA,

26 Broadway, 3rd floor, New York, NY 10004-1789.