Slashdot Mirror

I'm glad you picked Purdue, that was one of my favorites:

...pronouns should:
1. AGREE in NUMBER
If the pronoun takes the place of a singular noun, you have to use a singular pronoun.
...
The words EVERYBODY, ANYBODY, ANYONE, EACH, NEITHER, NOBODY, SOMEONE, A PERSON, etc. are singular and take singular pronouns.

Everybody ought to do his or her best. (NOT: their best)

(Capital letters are theirs, emphasis is mine.)

I won't bother explaining yet again that the pronoun in your original sentence is not indefinite since it specifically refers to "a person" that you defined, you. Since you have the insane notion that just because you thought it meant something correct makes it correct, you would probably argue that 2 + 2 = 7 is mathematically correct because you "wrote seven while meaning four."

Instead, I'll point out that the document you cited wasn't written by Purdue, it was written by the National Council of Teachers of English. (Remember my comment about how with my luck, you'll get one of the stupid ones?) I checked their Web site to find a little more information about who they were and where this document you cited came from. The full version is posted here, and I do wish that Purdue hadn't shortened and/or paraphrased it. Regarding the section you quoted, it says:

Use of the singular they/their form. This construction is becoming increasingly acceptable. However, classroom teachers need to be aware that state and/or national assessments may not regard this construction as correct.

Also, the purpose of this document is for use as a guide to gender-neutral writing. It is not about correct grammar. In fact, the writers give the following as their stated purpose:

These guidelines offer suggestions for language use that will open rather than close possibilities and that speakers and writers should consider when engaged in communication activities.

Excuse me, but just because incorrect structures <airquotes> open possibilities </airquotes> doesn't make it any more correct than you are.

So given the choice between every reputable grammar resource and one organization that I've never heard of before in a document designed to make people feel good about themselves and that even admits that what they said isn't really considered correct, I'll stick with the former. I have no strong feelings against the NCTE, but if you look at their site, it's painfully obvious that they are not about education, they are about educators. They should stick to giving out Doublespeak Awards instead of grammar guidelines designed to encourage students to write anything, correct or not.

But hey, congratulations, you dug up one source designed to accommodate people like you who can't write. You go ahead and believe what you want to believe. Don't let being wrong stand in the way of boosting your misguided esteem, it's the American way! If you want to follow the fringe and look like an idiot to everyone else, I wouldn't even dream of stopping you.

See ya,
KS

P.S. My favorite quote from the site with the full version of the document: "[This document is] a guideline approved by the NCTE Executive Committee and found to be consistent with NCTE positions on education issues." Ha! That's what I want to learn grammar from—guidelines written to be consistent with positions on issues. You really are George W. Bush, aren't you? I knew it, because I see how you're pushing science in the same direction!

I'm glad you picked Purdue, that was one of my favorites:

...pronouns should:
1. AGREE in NUMBER
If the pronoun takes the place of a singular noun, you have to use a singular pronoun.
...
The words EVERYBODY, ANYBODY, ANYONE, EACH, NEITHER, NOBODY, SOMEONE, A PERSON, etc. are singular and take singular pronouns.

Everybody ought to do his or her best. (NOT: their best)

(Capital letters are theirs, emphasis is mine.)

I won't bother explaining yet again that the pronoun in your original sentence is not indefinite since it specifically refers to "a person" that you defined, you. Since you have the insane notion that just because you thought it meant something correct makes it correct, you would probably argue that 2 + 2 = 7 is mathematically correct because you "wrote seven while meaning four."

Instead, I'll point out that the document you cited wasn't written by Purdue, it was written by the National Council of Teachers of English. (Remember my comment about how with my luck, you'll get one of the stupid ones?) I checked their Web site to find a little more information about who they were and where this document you cited came from. The full version is posted here, and I do wish that Purdue hadn't shortened and/or paraphrased it. Regarding the section you quoted, it says:

Use of the singular they/their form. This construction is becoming increasingly acceptable. However, classroom teachers need to be aware that state and/or national assessments may not regard this construction as correct.

Also, the purpose of this document is for use as a guide to gender-neutral writing. It is not about correct grammar. In fact, the writers give the following as their stated purpose:

These guidelines offer suggestions for language use that will open rather than close possibilities and that speakers and writers should consider when engaged in communication activities.

Excuse me, but just because incorrect structures <airquotes> open possibilities </airquotes> doesn't make it any more correct than you are.

So given the choice between every reputable grammar resource and one organization that I've never heard of before in a document designed to make people feel good about themselves and that even admits that what they said isn't really considered correct, I'll stick with the former. I have no strong feelings against the NCTE, but if you look at their site, it's painfully obvious that they are not about education, they are about educators. They should stick to giving out Doublespeak Awards instead of grammar guidelines designed to encourage students to write anything, correct or not.

But hey, congratulations, you dug up one source designed to accommodate people like you who can't write. You go ahead and believe what you want to believe. Don't let being wrong stand in the way of boosting your misguided esteem, it's the American way! If you want to follow the fringe and look like an idiot to everyone else, I wouldn't even dream of stopping you.

See ya,
KS

P.S. My favorite quote from the site with the full version of the document: "[This document is] a guideline approved by the NCTE Executive Committee and found to be consistent with NCTE positions on education issues." Ha! That's what I want to learn grammar from—guidelines written to be consistent with positions on issues. You really are George W. Bush, aren't you? I knew it, because I see how you're pushing science in the same direction!

you, sir, are correct.

My own experiences, personal and professional, speak to this truth. When I was a student, I had a solid understanding (or at least I thought I did) of English grammar, and when I began studying the Spanish language, I discovered two things: I understood Spanish grammar easily, and I found that this understanding led to a deeper understanding of my native English grammar. Professionally, my students have taught me quite a bit about how kids learn grammar as well.

The problem as I've witnessed it so far is that students (at least my native English-speakers) have an innate understanding of syntax and grammar, but it's all oral. When it comes time for my freshmen and sophomores to focus on written syntax and grammar, many of them falter because they are unable to see and to use the connections between their oral and written understanding of grammar. Part of this problem may be the result of not having had any grammar instruction while in elementary school, or so little of it and so early on in their education that most students forget it because it hasn't been reinforced through the intermediate grades.

When these students reach middle school or high school and begin (sometimes for the first time) their study of a foreign language, they learn both oral and written aspects of that language concurrently, and thus it is a bit easier to see some of the explicit connections between the two modes.

My students that struggle with English grammar are the same students that struggle with the grammars of other languages, according to my colleagues in the Spanish and French departments. Those students don't "get" Spanish grammar because they don't have a solid understanding of English grammar. For those students who possess at least middling understanding of English grammar, the reinforcement they receive in their study of Spanish, for example, strengthens their knowledge and use of written and oral English.

Keep in mind that I've not completely researched this yet, but this is what I've observed in my own classroom and in speaking with other teachers.

Now, for a tangential rant:

Some research shows that isolated instruction in English grammar (parts of speech drills) does little to improve student writing. Unfortunately, much of what I've read from the NCTE shows that they infer from this research that students shouldn't receive any explicit grammar instruction. You can read more about their grammar policies here. Most reasonable people agree that grammar instruction is only effective when taught in the context a student's own writing. One instructor whose work I've found useful and, as a consequence, have implemented in my own classroom, is Ed Vavra's K.I.S.S. grammar, whose objective is to teach grammar by focusing on syntax.

This issue of improving student writing (and grammar's role in it) doesn't seem like it should be so complex, but it is (at least here in California).

I don't know how correct it is, but I like to use a math analogy: can we expect a student to understand the subtleties of calculus and higher maths if he doesn't understand such basic terms as "add," "subtract," "multiply," or "divide"? How can students improve their writing without understanding the grammatical and syntactical foundations of their language?

you, sir, are correct.

My own experiences, personal and professional, speak to this truth. When I was a student, I had a solid understanding (or at least I thought I did) of English grammar, and when I began studying the Spanish language, I discovered two things: I understood Spanish grammar easily, and I found that this understanding led to a deeper understanding of my native English grammar. Professionally, my students have taught me quite a bit about how kids learn grammar as well.

The problem as I've witnessed it so far is that students (at least my native English-speakers) have an innate understanding of syntax and grammar, but it's all oral. When it comes time for my freshmen and sophomores to focus on written syntax and grammar, many of them falter because they are unable to see and to use the connections between their oral and written understanding of grammar. Part of this problem may be the result of not having had any grammar instruction while in elementary school, or so little of it and so early on in their education that most students forget it because it hasn't been reinforced through the intermediate grades.

When these students reach middle school or high school and begin (sometimes for the first time) their study of a foreign language, they learn both oral and written aspects of that language concurrently, and thus it is a bit easier to see some of the explicit connections between the two modes.

My students that struggle with English grammar are the same students that struggle with the grammars of other languages, according to my colleagues in the Spanish and French departments. Those students don't "get" Spanish grammar because they don't have a solid understanding of English grammar. For those students who possess at least middling understanding of English grammar, the reinforcement they receive in their study of Spanish, for example, strengthens their knowledge and use of written and oral English.

Keep in mind that I've not completely researched this yet, but this is what I've observed in my own classroom and in speaking with other teachers.

Now, for a tangential rant:

Some research shows that isolated instruction in English grammar (parts of speech drills) does little to improve student writing. Unfortunately, much of what I've read from the NCTE shows that they infer from this research that students shouldn't receive any explicit grammar instruction. You can read more about their grammar policies here. Most reasonable people agree that grammar instruction is only effective when taught in the context a student's own writing. One instructor whose work I've found useful and, as a consequence, have implemented in my own classroom, is Ed Vavra's K.I.S.S. grammar, whose objective is to teach grammar by focusing on syntax.

This issue of improving student writing (and grammar's role in it) doesn't seem like it should be so complex, but it is (at least here in California).

I don't know how correct it is, but I like to use a math analogy: can we expect a student to understand the subtleties of calculus and higher maths if he doesn't understand such basic terms as "add," "subtract," "multiply," or "divide"? How can students improve their writing without understanding the grammatical and syntactical foundations of their language?

Is it a semester-length class or a year-long course? In my own lesson planning, length of the class greatly limits how much actual reading material I can cover. If the class is only one semester long, I might suggest choosing several short stories coupled with one to three novels. If the class will run the full year, then you will have greater leeway in choosing a wider variety of novels and authors.

As for the curriculum itself, to what degree must you include a writing component? You may want to consider, in addition to a literary analysis essay, some kind of research paper that explores one or more aspects of the "sciences" you'll be reading about. Even something as simple as a reading journal/log that allows the students to informally explore thematic connections among the works themselves, or between the works and real life, could be valuable. Tracking current events in scientific fields related to the reading might interest you as well. Of course, the actual works you choose ultimately depend on the make-up of your class. Are you teaching seniors, juniors, sophomores, or freshmen, or some combination of them all? While something like Huxley's Brave New World, for example, is a valid choice for a sci-fi class, I don't know if it would be the best choice (in terms of themes, readability, etc.) for a class full of 9th graders. I know the majority of the ninth graders I teach currently would have a difficult time reading that particular book. I digress.

Now for the literature itself: I mentioned short stories earlier, and there are several very good pieces that could work for you. Almost anything by Bradbury or Asimov would be suitable, in addition to many other good authors. Your choice of novels is almost boundless. Clarke is good, especially Childhood's End if you need to include a shorter novel. Herbert's Dune would be an excellent choice, depending on the focus of your class, as it allows exploration and discussion of many subjects and themes beyond just the science itself (which is quite good in its own right). Le Guin, Chrichton, Card, Stephenson (Snow Crash), to name a few, might also make good choices.

Take a look at this NCTE link that addresses this very question for more suggestions.

I really want to continue discussing this topic, but I have to get back to grading a batch of essays. If you will be including Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, let me know because I have several resources, links, and related lesson plans I can share with you.

I'm champing at the bit waiting for my school to allow such a class, so I envy your position.

Best of luck to you, and I would enjoy hearing how this class works out for you.

JB

My Cultural Anthropology class had an assigned reading on "Doublespeak": Language, Appearance, and Reality: Doublespeak in 1984, by William D. Lutz of Rutgers University. It reviews gems like TV's with "nonmulticolor capability", and "ballistically induced aperture in the subcutaneous environment" (a bullet hole).

Lutz, along with being a Professor of English, was involved with the National Council of Teachers of English Committee on Public Doublespeak (that's a mouthful), as well as the editor of the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak.

The NCTE has only a placeholder page for their Quarterly Review, but it does offer some useful information on their mailing list. A search for "doublespeak" on the same site brings back many hits for their George Orwell Award.

My Cultural Anthropology class had an assigned reading on "Doublespeak": Language, Appearance, and Reality: Doublespeak in 1984, by William D. Lutz of Rutgers University. It reviews gems like TV's with "nonmulticolor capability", and "ballistically induced aperture in the subcutaneous environment" (a bullet hole).

Lutz, along with being a Professor of English, was involved with the National Council of Teachers of English Committee on Public Doublespeak (that's a mouthful), as well as the editor of the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak.

The NCTE has only a placeholder page for their Quarterly Review, but it does offer some useful information on their mailing list. A search for "doublespeak" on the same site brings back many hits for their George Orwell Award.