It was the first day of class in my History of the English language class I took last summer and our professor asked us why people say 'aks' instead of 'ask.' An awkward silence fell over the class (as always happens in college classrooms). Finally someone spoke up and hesitanly said "laziness?" I didn't answer, but I was thinking the same thing. "But what's lazy about it?" the professor asked "Is it easier to say aks than ask?" And the short answer is no. The aks vs. ask problem goes much deeper, stemming from, among other things, racism. But that's what we do with grammar. Ever since I've known it, it's been a tool for degredation. And how do we tell if someone is stupid? If they "ain't got none" or "don't do good." No no no, it's "haven't got any" and "don't do well." People hide behind grammar so they can assert their superiority or because they have nothing valuable to say. "Almost anyone can 'correct' a draft. Not everyone can respond to it in a comprehensive, sophisticated manner." (p. 149). Someone asked me once about a sign she saw "It said Renissance Festival in Excelsior Springs. Shouldn't it be at Excelsior Springs." I gave her a blank look. I really don't know or care. "C'mon. You're the English teacher, you should know!" I guess her knowing the location of Ren Fest hinged on whether it was at or in the town. It's pretty arbitrary sometimes, this grammar stuff, because "published contemporary writers do all sorts of things students are taught to avoid." (p. 150). If, as the Revitalize Grammar chapter pointed out, students are writing with a purpose (as do professional writers) they will be able to utilize a specific set of grammar rules to complement their piece. They will understand how change in tense or complex sentence structures can help or hinder their writing.
They hit on my old assumptions about bad grammar in these two chapters. That it's a result of stupidity or laziness. But in the end I think the old methods or teaching grammar are trite and unfair. My professor said, with a chuckle, that no matter what he tells people, they're never convinced. Some people are absolutely sure there's only one way to say or spell 'ask,' even if a linguist tells them differently. If the meaning shines through, then do the mechanics really matter? He solidified his argument by pointing out that some hack named Chaucer also used aks in his writing. If it's good enough for Chaucer, shouldn't it be good enough for everybody?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your title reminded me of when Chris Gardner (the author of _The Pursuit of Happyness_) was here on campus, speaking at Jesse Hall. A young woman approached, stating, "I'd like to aks you..." At this point he interrupted, saying, "Aks me? You're going to aks me? That sounds dangerous" (this quote is not verbatim but rather a reconstruction--my brain just can't hold that much info). He blew her off because she didn't speak standard English. This guy is on Wall Street. What does this say about the business world? What does this say about professionalism? I would like to have asked him about his reaction, talked to him about language usage in his profession. He'd have many insights we in the classroom do not necessarily have on this issue.
I agree with Matt. Many linguistics professors will tell you that it doesn't matter whether or not you use correct grammar, as long as you're able to communicate your ideas. Everyone knows that when people say "I ain't got no money" it means the same thing as "I don't have any money." (This is a side note, but in many other languages, using a double negative intensifies the negative making it even stronger.) I think that as long as we're able to understand people and teach our students to communicate in a way they can be understood, then it's ok if their grammar ain't perfect.
We do have to keep in mind when this might not be as acceptable, like if our students are writing to be published in some way. Then, we may want to correct them.
Post a Comment