I weep for our language (part 6)…

Ouch. I’ve found that loose-lose is the (sadly, too common) language mistake that drives me craziest.

I’m always a fan of core/corps. Really, I love it when people complain about NFL teams’ wide receiver cores.

What really annoys me is when people say “the reason is because … ”

Possibly, the road-rode bit in this case is more a brain fart than an actual misconception.

I’ve been known to be a grammar fascist myself (being a teacher and all), but I’m trying to relax on it a bit. Yes, there are some egregious mistakes that are made, some of which make you scratch your head and wonder what certain people get paid for (especially the editors, as someone pointed out), but I feel like as long as the point of the writing is clear, that is what matters most. Maybe I just tell myself this because I would otherwise have to stop reading EVERY piece of written work, because everything contains and error at one point or another. But it helps me from going crazy.

I’m glad CNN keeps transcripts of their shows because it allows me to post something from when Hurricane Gustav came ashore in Louisiana.

Keep in mind Rob Marciano is a METEOROLOGIST and therefore has a significant amount of education…

“ROB MARCIANO, CNN METEOROLOGIST: …And it really is an eerie sight. You know with these centuries-old buildings, some cases well over 200 years old, it almost it feels like you’re on the city walls of some an ancient city looking at — at the rooftops as the wind continues to **buffer** the structures.

In some cases we have seen — you can see Jackson Square. In some cases we have seen roof tiles…

MYERS: Not today.

MARCIANO: … and other sort of structures off flying about town. But more so we’ve seen it at some of the higher structures of downtown. We’ll swing it around now.

We feel fairly safe at this spot because even though the winds from this morning were blowing off the French Quarter, obviously, we’re pretty much at one of the higher spots. Now we go to downtown where — you know, it’s just a tale of two cities almost.

Modern buildings, skyscrapers being **buffered** by this wind and this rain as well. Not sure if the power is out there. It’s certainly been out in most of the French Quarter today. ”

One mistake could be passed off as a misspeak in the middle of a storm, but twice? I nearly coughed my orange juice the second time he said “buffer” instead of “buffet.”

Interestingly the next generation may get even worse in spelling and grammar due to the popularity of the Teachers College pedagogical method. It stresses the craft and act of writing and reading while forsaking the nuts and bolts of grammar and spelling. Students in the future will not be able to diagram sentences, identify parts of speech, or spell their own language correctly, but (apparently) will be enthusiastic readers and writers. I must say though: a) I am very skeptical of any language education that forgoes the building-blocks of language; b) I wonder how that will affect the foreign language ability of young students; c) I have always wondered how we have even gotten to this point where it is so acceptable to be unaware of how to spell in English. The concept of a spelling bee or questioning how to spell something is entirely foreign to German or Finnish for example, but in our language these are normal parts of society. It’s a bit strange.

Francis, I am confused by your last statement. Are you saying we OVERemphasize spelling by stating we are the only society with spelling bees? Or we underestimate because of what you have identified as changes to teaching philosophy?

As a teacher (not TC-educated, but Bank Street), I can tell you that your understanding of shifts in pedagogy are not 100% accurate. You are essentially looking at the debate between whole-language based reading/writing instruction and phonics based instruction. Ideally, the best strategy exists somewhere in between, but neither one is “right” or “wrong” absolutely and are their success is primarily dependent upon how they achieve the goals of the educator (be it an individual teacher, school, or society-at-large).

Anyway, my personal feeling is that fluency and the communication of ideas should be the primary focus of reading and writing instruction and therefore learning the “nuts and bolts” is less important than developing a passion for the craft and learning how to effectively communicate. Other people have different ideas (some valid, some not). Studies I have seen show that students who have a more phonics-based approach often end up with more technical skill but less interest and appreciation for the work and therefore a quality to their work that does not indicate this skill. Students with more whole-language experience have less technical skill, but far higher interest in reading and writing and a better appreciation for the art of reading/writing. These students generally test poorly compared to those with a phonics background but create better overall writing and have better comprehension skills. Again, it somewhat comes down to what your emphasis as an individual is. Mine, and much of what the research suggests is best, is somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards whole-language over phonics if one must be chosen.

I think that the point about spelling bees is this: The fact that we have bees shows that we consider the ability to spell to be a kind of accomplishment. And the ability to spell could only be prestigious in this way if most people could not do it.

Jeff, that’s true. Not to mention the fact that English has more words in its vocabulary and a far larger variety of languages from which it draws, thus creating multiple spellings of a phonetically identical sound (bow, bough, beau). However in German and French the languages are certainly not entirely phonetic, but the spelling is not a challenge. My point on spelling bees is the one Andy was pointing out: we are underemphasizing spelling. I just do not think that people write or read much less than they used to even if it might seem that way. They simply read different media. They forsake literature for the popcorn novel, newspapers for news websites and blogs, surely. But they read and write constantly (including in online community discussions such as this one). The problem is that without knowing the nuts and bolts the language further degrades into the AOL chat dialect of initials and improper spelling and sentence structure. My feeling is that if the spelling and grammar were more stressed (I’m not so concerned with phonics) these people would at least know what proper language looks like while writing and reading their pop-media. But I am aware there is a debate about this Brian. I only know what I know from talking to a few teachers who told me that TC is the way young teachers are going and only the old guard is staying which the spelling and grammar methods. I guess I would clearly fall on the side of the old guard.

This conversation would be remiss in not mentioning the cruel coincidence that David Foster Wallace died this past weekend of an apparent suicide. Check out his article from April 2001 in Harper’s, “reprinted” here:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html

(Unfortunately, the formatting here doesn’t really do Wallace’s prose justice.)

Brian, how do you fit “standards” and “rules” into your framework? Funny how educators have trouble enough teaching subjects that don’t change too much – math and spelling – and yet policy focus seems to orbit sex ed for k-9.

Keith, your 2 cents on Lehman and ML???

I would be happy that someone has even SEEN the word penultimate, even if they used it incorrectly. It’s one of my favorite words!

“Really, I love it when people complain about NFL teams’ wide receiver cores”

Maybe they want those players to do more crunches.

I think rowed out the storm would have been a more appropriate goof.

Francis, to be fair, I teach young kids (Pre-K/K) so I don’t really get into that at all. I can’t speak to how it should look with older kids, but in general, I always say there is a balance. There should be opportunities for children to engage academics in a child-centered, exploratory way that allows for creativity and passion to develop AND should learn form and function from people who are experts (as teachers SHOULD be, but are not always) in the area. IF only one approach was going to be followed, I would lean towards the former.

Don’t get me started on educational reform movements; just please don’t lump ALL teachers into the vast majority who, unfortunately, are ridiculously unqualified to do their jobs and, more importantly, with uninformed politicians directing educational policy.

Another Jdas classic is to re-read something after I have sent IT and realise I have missed out important words! Doh

Hey Brian,
I just wanted you to expand on your pedagogical philosophy.
I had an interesting conversation with a random former principal from upstate NY. Some of the stories he told me were pretty ridiculous.

It reminds me of a story when Gov Reagan entered the Berkeley campus for an appearance. As his limo approached, a student got up on the car and yelled, “we are the future!” Reagan then held up a note that said, “Then I’m selling my bonds!”

This is what drives me nuts:
There is a guy at my office who keeps saying “mine as well,” instead of “might as well,” and sadly this is not the first time I have heard a person confuse the two 🙁

I know it has become popular and acceptable now, but I still can’t stand dropping the comma before “and” in a list. UGH. I don’t know why, but that DOES boil my blood for some bizarre reason.

“Me fail English? That’s unpossible!”

Brian, what you’re referring to is the Oxford comma. The comma that comes in a list of three or more things. You are correct that while some outfits (generally newspapers, magazines, and other sorts of press) would suggest the Oxford comma be phased out, there are certain publishing houses (such as Oxford University Press and my own T & T Clark e.g.) that encourage it. There is however a proper place for both its use and disuse. When it alleviates confusion it should be used, when it brings ambiguity it should be left out.
Here are a couple examples:
“I went to Rome with Sally, a dog and a suitcase.” — Here if you used the Oxford comma it might look like Sally was a dog, but forgoing it makes it clear that there were three items that went with you to Rome.

“On vacation I read something about horses, Romulus, and Faustulus. –If you didn’t use the Oxford comma here then one might confuse the horses’ names with Romulus and Faustulus, instead of seeing that all three were separate entities.

There are of course myriad other examples where no ambiguity is made either way, or both the use or non-use are ambiguous. In these cases both are correct and it is up to the author.

I’m in sales and being in a sales org, many of my co-workers don’t think that we are INCENTIVIZED to sell the right products. Incentivized? Really? In my industry, it is imperative that we be knowledgeable and sound intelligent (we aren’t selling cell phones at a kiosk) and my colleagues think we can just make up words? It drives me mad…

According to the OED incentivize is in fact a real transitive verb meaning to provide (someone) with an incentive for doing something. I’m not trying to clown you, just saying, it appears to be a word.

Francis-

Thanks for the insight. I was aware of the shift and how, when it does not cause ambiguity, it has become acceptable, but it still bothered me. I wasn’t aware of situations in which the traditional method COULD cause ambiguity (Sally the dog), though that sentence could still be read as “Sally being a dog and a suitcase.” This seems ridiculous, but try this: I went with John, an officer and a gentleman. There is always room for confusion so I generally rely on context.

I’m not disagreeing with you by any means and appreciate the further info. It just bothers me when it is used unnecessarily. I guess some minor OCD I have.

Where’s KLaw been in all this?

Again? Damn him. To be fair, “should of” and “should’ve” are pronounced the same, so at least I understand that mistake.

@ Mike– I have seen dozens of blog posts, and especially comments, talking about how so-and-so must have “Made a pact with Stan” to [insert whatever the blog is about here].

That Stan, he sure seems to have some juice.