The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The fight for English > Comments

The fight for English : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 7/3/2008

The rules for the use of apostrophes and capitalisation, have been sucked from the classroom like a road map out of the window of a speeding car.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
For someone trying to be pedantic about the use of English, the writer has a number of misplaced commas in his article!

Guess it's not the school curriculum that's entirely at fault.
Posted by petal, Friday, 7 March 2008 9:07:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Better look up the word pedant Petal. You're a classic example. Comma's? I rest my case.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 7 March 2008 9:24:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Malcolm. Seeing the daily abuse of the humble apostrophe on signage along any Australian High Street almost makes me weep.

But the web has some answers - if only people would surf the right breaks. Try http://www.bartleby.com/116/ for instance.

While people may try to trivialise your points you only have to see a film like "Idiocracy" to glimpse where we might find ourselves a few generations from here if we don't draw the line somewhere.
Posted by tebbutt, Friday, 7 March 2008 9:52:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is muddle-headed, especially in his historical analysis of the alleged literacy problem.

Initially he claims that, 'The three-way “prang” of half-baked leftist ideology, the mumbo-jumbo of post modernist thinking and the introduction of new media in school curriculums, has been an unmitigated disaster for the teaching of English in Australia.' With the exception, possibly, of the first of the three (and that depends on what he means by "half-baked leftist ideology") the two other vehicles in the three-way "prang" came long after his alleged collapse of the learning of English in Australia.

On his own reckoning, 'The disappearance of grammar from the classroom in the 1970s and 1980s meant that both students and their teachers cannot tell a gerund from a split infinitive, an adverb from an adjective.' They and apostrophes and capitalisation have been 'sucked from the classroom like a road map out of the window of a speeding car'.

Even making allowances for his contorted metaphor, his grasp of chronology betrays yet another well-meaning, but ill-informed, critic of a system barely understood. 'As a former university selection officer and lecturer in professional writing,' he tells us, 'I was astounded by the poor spelling and grammar of 17 and 18-year-olds - and of their parents'. Their parents too?

So which is it: the three-way “prang” - half-baked leftist ideology, post modernist thinking and new media in school curriculums (phenomena of the 90s) or the so-called disappearance of grammar from the classroom in the 1970s and 1980s?

And pray tell: when was 'the golden age' when everyone could tell a gerund from a split infinitive, an adverb from an adjective and the rules for the use of apostrophes and capitalisation.

If 'only a fool believes that “multiple interpretations“ allows multiple errors of grammar, syntax and spelling', then only a fool believes that multiple interpretations are the cause of multiple errors in grammar, syntax and spelling. Or that Malcolm King's own imperfect English expression is a result of his multiple interpretations of the history of Australian education.

Malcolm, more research next time - and do watch your punctuation. C-
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 7 March 2008 10:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What an excellent article. Thank you.

It appalls me how little people read. It appalls me that teachers put so much emphasis on what the author correctly calls "relativist twaddle" - as if their analysis of Dickens is as good as David Lodge's. It appalls me that people somehow think the passive voice makes them sound clever.

This article has nothing to do with pedantry. We're losing sight of the deep glamour of grammar by focusing debate on boring arguments about whether text messaging is destroying the English language. Text messaging isn't destroying the English language - failing to read great books in it is. Our failure to teach children correct grammar is. Once you know grammar you can play all sorts of funny games with it, including with your phone. Grammar unlocks literature. I can't imagine reading Henry James without explicitly appreciating what he's doing to the subject-verb-object sentence structure.

Structuring one's sentences and spelling correctly is important, and fosters one's love of this gorgeous, elastic language of ours. But no one is perfect and mistakes happen. (I didn't notice the misplaced commas in this article - unless you're talking about the Oxford comma Petal - but I did notice the clanger of spelling McEwan as "McEwin." Hells bells!) What annoys me is when people simply and very clearly do not give a ha'penny jizz about style - who fail to even *try* to spell and structure correctly. Those types abound on this forum. Perhaps this would encourage them to download Firefox, within which they can spell-check their posts before unleashing them on the world.

A.S. Byatt's Babel Tower is an excellent novel exploring the language wars of the 1960s.

Hurrah for Malcolm!
Posted by Vanilla, Friday, 7 March 2008 10:27:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So many targets, so few bullets, as the Leavises eventually came to realise. (My computer complains that I spell 'realise' with an 's.')

I also think your article would have a bit more authority if you had edited it a bit more tightly, given its subject matter -- but then how superficial a critique is that?

In a similar vein, note how many employer bodies (ACCI did this recently) call for graduates who can write properly, but stuff up the spelling and/or punctuation of their pleas.

If I have a point, it is that we know it matters when someone else stuffs it up.
Posted by Tom Clark, Friday, 7 March 2008 10:47:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla, those who set themselves up as arbiters of taste and virtue in the English language should at least avoid infelicities and clangers.

Take your sentence: "It appalls me how little people read." Are you saying that only tall people should read? Or that people who are short of stature read badly?

Or what are we to make of your sentence: "It appalls me that teachers put so much emphasis on what the author correctly calls 'relativist twaddle' - as if their analysis of Dickens is as good as David Lodge's"? Are you claiming that David Lodge's analysis of Dickens is as good as, or better than, teachers' analysis of Dickens?

I agree with you when you say, "Structuring one's sentences and spelling correctly is important..." and on OLO I have been shocked by the poor standard of English prose in some postings. Rushing to judgement, however, may lead you to miss some important content.

As you say, "But no one is perfect and mistakes happen". It's not so very long ago that teachers were teaching their students that you never start a sentence with 'but'. But I'm happy that we've relaxed that rule, aren't you?
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 7 March 2008 10:56:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been a critic of King's Toryism for a while but this article hits the nail on the head. Gee, I'm so worried about mixing metaphors here but I'll push on regardless like a bull at a train.

If my reading of this article is correct, the author is looking for a 'middle path'. He clearly ain't a follower of post modernist thinking but also reckons it shouldn't be completely disgarded from a currucula (or is it curriculums?) Damn the Latins!

It's a case for a return to Donnelly's values and I would suggest the 'close reading' techniques of Leavis but also let the students decide if Derrida, et al are still valid and useful critiques.

I wonder if King isn't being a bit disingenious in so far as much post modernist thinking has imploded and is hardly taught at all in Europe, so the result will be a forgone conclusion. I also think King is a vocationalist so that twists his argument.

I am STRONGLY in favour of a national school curriculum and now is the time to bring it on. The AEU arguments on seperatist state based curriculia are absurd. Bring it on!
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 7 March 2008 11:08:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dunno Frankgol. I've always used the word 'however' instead of 'but' which was enough of a loophole.

Given the nature of this article, I'm all too aware that I'll probably make a few grammatical errors in this post, which will open the door to pedantic criticism.

In fact, many of the comments thus far can be summarised as 'nitpicking'.

The essence of Mr King's article appears to be that we're placing less priority on proper English.
I'd argue there is still some degree of interpretation, as evidenced by the differing comments thus far on accurate grammar.

That being said, it can't be denied that there is an awful lot of poor spelling and grammar out there, often from places where I think we're justified in expecting better.
An alarming number of my peers in university had very poor spelling and grammar skills.
Mine probably aren't perfect. I suspect few people's skills in this area really are. At least I've got a pretty good handle on my spelling and apostrophes.

I concur with Vanilla on this one - we could use with more devotion to both grammar and literature in our education system.
Okay, so there won't be one single accurate standard - but if we raise the bar, then when we inevitable slip a little from the ideal, our average is still better.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 7 March 2008 11:09:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Damn. That should have been 'inevitably.'

Well, that was bound to happen.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 7 March 2008 11:10:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here here.

...waitaminute...

I feel like I've lost something everytime I read a comment on news sites that not only mispells that, but also misunderstands what it means and what they're actually trying to say.

Oh, and having a go at people's grammar on this site is a quick way to make yourself look like a complete elitist idiot. Mistakes like these aren't the issue that the author of the article is trying to raise; the simple ones are. Typing errors aren't the same, either!
Their. They're. Plurals with a flaming apostrophe! *sighs*
Posted by Chade, Friday, 7 March 2008 11:13:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank: "those who set themselves up as arbiters of taste and virtue in the English language"
Are you suggesting I'm one of those? I'm not. I believe there *are* markers of taste and virtue in literature, but an arbiter of them I am not. My reaction to this piece was purely emotional, not bossy. Reading has probably been the single greatest love of my life, and it saddens me that (as I believe) the education system no longer explicitly instructs students on the beautiful, meaningful game of Tetris that is English grammar.

"Take your sentence: "It appalls me how little people read." Are you saying that only tall people should read? Or that people who are short of stature read badly?"
What do you think? I'm assuming that, if there's ambiguity in this sentence, people will be able to use context and cleverness to resolve it. And understand that I meant it upsets me that people don't read many books. I appeal to your common sense. All you've pointed out here and with your other example is that I'm not a great writer. Believe it or not, I knew that. But even given my clear failings, I dislike the type of competitive pedantry that would have us remove all ambiguity form language.

"But I'm happy that we've relaxed that rule, aren't you?" Absolutely. As I said, I've no time for pedantry, and that extends to mid-20th-century fads for not starting sentences with conjunctions or never splitting infinitives. There were some clear liberations won in the language wars of the 60s - in some ways, throwing out grammar did allow children to express themselves creatively without feeling bound by form.

Clearly, I came across to you as very judgmental about language, so apologies to you and anyone else who thought that. The article struck a cord for me and my response was probably overly-emotional. But, as someone who learnt to parse sentences myself as an adult, I'd like for kids today to learn both creativity *and* form.
Posted by Vanilla, Friday, 7 March 2008 11:19:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Witnessing abuse of the Queen's English has caused me some anguish over the years, I'll have to admit.

And I still wince when I hear an ABC news reader or weather announcer say things like: "Tomorrow we will have warmer temperatures" (temperatures can be high and low but not warmer) or ".... two days in a row" (you can't have a row of two) and universal replacement of the word 'if' with 'whether'. "I don't know whether I will go to town". (I was always taught in school that 'whether' had to infer a choice between two things - as in, 'whether or not'.)

And so forth.

Are ABC newsreaders told to read in the vernacular for greater appeal, or has the education system worked its way upwards to an older generation? Makes me think its not the education system so much as a gradual societal acceptance that politically correct language is no longer necessary.

The purpose of language is to communicate, apart from its latent poetry, so I suppose my generation frustration at language abuse may be misplaced. I could just be described a an old fart for making a fuss about nothing.

Still, I wince and wince again when all of my lifetime's language training is confronted by these contortions.

The one thing that has riled my sensibilities is the introduction of computers in schools. They automatically default with American spelling and that's how so many school computers are set up. Imagine what it's like to be a child and having conflicting spelling thrown up at you whenever you draft your school essays. Mr Bill Gates certainly has a lot to answer for.

It would have been so easy (and necessary) for school authorities to have all school computers installed with traditional English spelling. Education authorities should be castigated for allowing such oversights to take place.
Posted by gecko, Friday, 7 March 2008 11:30:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Splendid writing! Congratulations. As to the "Fight for English" I fear I am losing it in relation to two phrases. The first is " ....has/have/there are issues..." In regards to the first, the second is: "in regards to..."!!

iudex
Posted by iudex, Friday, 7 March 2008 11:45:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I regret being Ponderous, but Malcolm had another grammatical error: his statement: "There are school teachers far more capable people than me......"
"Me"? Surely you mean "I" to relate correctly to the elided verb "am".
It happens all the time in a society which speaks English, but does not understand its construction.
I agree also that the ABC uses sloppy grammar. Its journalists and writers do not seem to understand their craft fully. How often do you hear split infinitives used despite the fact that it would be just as easy to write a phrase correctly?
Correct use by the originators could promote correct use by the recipients, and we would stand less risk the use of our language being worsened through ignorance.

I hope that other people are like me when confronted by advertising signs poorly spelt or constructed.
I will not buy anything from that company; a very minor yet most satisfying act of retribution on my part.

See youse.
Posted by Ponder, Friday, 7 March 2008 12:30:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I continued to teach grammar and punctuation until I resigned from teaching in 2007. The teaching of the basics in schools never stopped. The learning of them has always been uneven.

Computers don’t spell. Software programs such as Word do. In any case, the American spellings such as in “color” are the originals. When English was replacing French as the official language of England, scribes in Chancery added the “u” to indicate that the word had passed into English from the French.

According to my 1965 edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage, there is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. The myth that one should not do so comes from Latin, in which the infinitive is a single word. In English it is two words and thus can be split. It is also a superstition that “different” cannot be followed by “to”.

Language changes. However, I agree with the author that their are many people whose standard of written expression – grammar, punctuation, clarity - is poor. I see this particularly in The Age, but hardly ever in the Herald Sun, which is an interesting distinction in itself given the target market for each newspaper.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 7 March 2008 1:44:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fully endorse the main gist of this article but agree with those posters who were somewhat confused as to which court the blame game was being played in. If indeed post-modernism was being presented as the culprit then I would vehemently disagree.

In general, for example, the most prolific posters on OLO are middle-aged and beyond, yet the standard of English expression is very low. I agree with the poster who said that it isn't the obscure points of grammatical etiquette that jar , but simple points such as "their" and "they're" and others that so completely obscure the points of some posts they are misunderstood, misrepresented or mystifying.

Thus it would appear that, if the function of a language is to allow us to communicate, the education system has been at fault since before even the 'Seventies.

Which leads me often to ponder a dichotomy of the chicken-and-egg variety: Does the lack of the apposite word, or the knowledge of syntax and structure indicate commensurate lack of complex thought? And vice versa. If two people look at a view and one remarks: "It's very nice" and the other "Oh, look how the sunlight dapples through the leaves and paints golden freckles on the ground" does the person who said it was "nice" not see how the sunlight has changed the image of the ground beneath from the mundane to the sublime? Or do they see it but feel a frustrating ache inside in not being able to express what they see?

In other words, without the knowledge of the correct tools with which to express ourselves does our appreciation for the fine, the beautiful, the complex eventually atrophy? Or does our general lack of skill with language indicate that we have, as a society, largely already lost this ability?

Or am I getting totally carried away?
Posted by Romany, Friday, 7 March 2008 5:58:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I honestly think we r going to end up with 2 versions of English.

SPEED version.. m8, gr8, over 2 u, 2nite. 2morrow etc.. SMS speak.

REAL version.. with fully spelled words and all correct punctuation.

But even if all the punctuation is correct.. how about the morphing of meanings "Sick" means 'wow..great'.. "Wicked" means. alllrightythen/cool/great. "Gay" (when used by heterosexuals)means wierd.)"Thats sooo gay"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 7 March 2008 6:51:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too regret the passing of good English spelling and grammar. However, I am so encouraged by the number of posts following the article. It makes me think there are more than a few people out there with a like mind.
Posted by snake, Friday, 7 March 2008 6:55:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear.

English is a living language. Grow or die.
Posted by Passy, Friday, 7 March 2008 8:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Language is forever evolving. We have many books in our house which are over a hundred years old. Looking at them today they are full of spelling mistakes. Mind you I dont know if they would have been spelling mistakes back when the book was printed.

All it proves is that language will be always on the move and it is hardly something to get worried about.
Posted by EasyTimes, Friday, 7 March 2008 10:44:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
100% spot on, whatever one's political persuasion and pet bigotry. In my own profession, students and young scientists for the last 25 years have amply demonstrated their inability to write succinct and correct English.I gave up reviewing scientific papers for an international scientific journal produced in NZ because of this very reason; I found that I would have to rewrite whole sections of the paper under review so that I could understand it. I have heard that in NZ, school students are allowed now to use text language in exams. English grammar used to be an examinable subject in its own right in English GCE exams, and one had to pass a Use of English exam to get into university. We need to return to the old style of education.
Posted by HenryVIII, Friday, 7 March 2008 10:56:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think the article was concerned with evolving changes to our language which, as some posters have pointed out, is inevitable. The capacity for change is cited by many linguists as one of the reasons "English" has endured while languages such as Latin and Classical Greek disappeared.

Words are continually "morphing" - look what's happened to the original meaning of words like cute, pretty, naughty, nice, housewife, know. And the language of texting does exactly what a language is supposed to do: communicates clearly and succinctly (and, I consider, rather cleverly in some instances). It will probably leave a lasting legacy on general language just as other communicative shortcuts left us with SNAFU, AWOL etc.

But the fact that large numbers of the population are losing (have lost?) their ability to communicate clearly is, I still consider, of concern. Allied to this is the consideration that, like it or not, people are judged on the way they speak and write. Surely the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots can only be exacerbated when large numbers of the population are judged inferior the moment they open their mouths or write a letter?
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 8 March 2008 3:23:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was and I said not but. - Comma that!!
Posted by enkew, Saturday, 8 March 2008 7:06:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany and others imply that standards are declining. I don't think studies actually show that. Most show that standards are better now than 100 years ago, fifty years ago, thirty years ago, twenty years ago and so on. My memory is that a recent study (from the ANU?) suggested some standards had not improved since the 60s, but the reasons for that may have been less pay for teachers (among others.)

So maybe we are having the same discussion that occurred a generation ago and a generation before that.

But one "solution" if there is a problem would be to pay teachers much more.
Posted by Passy, Saturday, 8 March 2008 8:45:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HenryVIII: "We need to return to the old style of education."

And go back to steam radio?

Whatever for?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 8 March 2008 10:40:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely the thrust of the article was a call for Rudd to introduce a national standardised school syllabus by end 2009. There may be numerous 'points of order' re grammar but King is carving through those and is putting the ball fairly in Rudd's court.

The writer is conservative but personally I don't care if he's Toad from Toad Hall. It's time to revamp the school curricula. I want to know that across the nation there's a standardised syllabus that all school kids learn from. There must be some room for local differences in case studies but that's all.

King has proposed letting the students decide whether post modernism stands up as an intellectual construct and whether it's useful in decoding history and texts or whether nation building can do without it. Bring this on.
Posted by Cheryl, Saturday, 8 March 2008 10:52:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl: "I want to know that across the nation there's a standardised syllabus that all school kids learn from."

If a national curriculum taken by all is excellent, then much good may come of it.

If a national curriculum taken by all is mediocre or worse, all our children - and the national interest - will suffer.

Think about what our children could have been learning if Howard's history had been foisted on all our children. A narrow escape. We can all cite examples where a perverse version of history has been foisted on generations of young minds with appalling consequences for national identity and the truth.

I'm more comfortable with diversity. At least no single ideology is implanted in the minds of Australian youth in the name of the so-called 'national interest'.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 8 March 2008 11:22:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point Frankgol. Surely the nature of learning is diverse. I don't advocate for a robotic kind of curricula, but one where as an employer and parent I know that the kinds of 'stuff' being taught in Goondawindi is what is being taught in Albany.

Kids take from school what they want and reject or forget much. I'm a centralist on this. Some things are too important to be left for the states. Look at the bun fight over the Murray.
Posted by Cheryl, Saturday, 8 March 2008 11:49:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We need to return to the old style of education because, having brought up three children and having come across assorted articles indicating that all is not well in standards of numeracy and literacy, the old style of education produced better results. I'd certainly go for clockwork radio.

Romany, 'tis right that U R about texting being a new form of succinct language. Hadn't thought of it like that. Maybe one day?
Latin is now Italian and Spanish, and Portugese as well, not to mention a fair bit of English, which is why it would be very helpful to have it taught in schools. It would certainly teach grammatical structure. Then folk might realise why we pluralise curriculum as curricula and hold referenda, and it would be harder for medical doctors to impress us with big words, such as "Keratosis", which is from the Greek.

Language is fun, and it should be taught, grammar and all, properly, to kids at an early age, and indeed we should be teaching a tonal Asian language to kids from the age of two or three when their brains can really soak it in.

And by the way Austrylia, to say, "There's two", ain't write. It's, "There're two";plural; get it? Damn commas.
Posted by HenryVIII, Saturday, 8 March 2008 2:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey guys and gals, don't get too serious about all this.

Whilst we may anguish over split infinitives and such, very literate people sit around board rooms working out how best to exploit people at the bottom. Being literate doesn't make us moral, or better human beings.

And some of the most decent people out there can't read or write.

And the people of Tuvalu - it matters not whether they split their infinitives or not - will soon have no country.

And my dog recognizes but a handful of words, yet is as loyal and friendly as can be.

Being a creature of habit, and an older one at that, the rapidly changing languagescape is a trifle irksome. But its somewhere at the bottom of my priorities. I simply don't care if my happy neighbour can't spell for nuts, the potatoes he gives me taste the same regardless.

There's much more to life than a split infinitive.
Posted by gecko, Saturday, 8 March 2008 3:06:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl, think your position through logically.

Why do you want employers and parents to know that “that the kinds of 'stuff' being taught in Goondawindi is what is being taught in Albany”?

Consider:

(a) Education should be in the interest of the child not the employer or the parent. Moreover, there are countless and diverse employers and ever more diverse parents, so what do we do with the inevitable conflict of opinion about what should be taught? Whose views should prevail? If some employers had their way, we wouldn’t teach children to think – some bosses want compliant workers who shut up and do what they’re told. I don’t want my children’s education being directed by them, do you?

(b) You say: “Some things are too important to be left for the states. Look at the bun fight over the Murray.” (Incidentally, the Commonwealth has now revoked the centralist position on the Murray.) This centralist position is obviously, in logic, capable of being extended. We already take most of our popular culture from the USA and our education systems are largely derived from the UK. So why not have one common curriculum for the whole of the English-speaking world? It make sense – employers and parents would know that the kind of ‘stuff’ being taught in Worcester is being taught in Washington and Wagga Wagga.

(c) If, as you say, “Some things are too important to be left for the states”, why aren’t they too important to be left to the Commonwealth? To be consistent, a centralist position would warrant a United Nations curriculum.

(d) You say, with good warrant, “Kids take from school what they want and reject or forget much”. Thank goodness for diverse humanity! The brainwashers of the world – and their apparatchiks in the education systems gnash their teeth in frustration when people develop minds of their own.

(e) Finally, tell me about the curriculum of the central curriculum makers. What did they learn that the rest of us didn't?
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 9 March 2008 11:11:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Henry V111 says: “We need to return to the old style of education because, having brought up three children and having come across assorted articles indicating that all is not well in standards of numeracy and literacy, the old style of education produced better results.

I reply: We need to move forward to a contemporary and futuristic education because, having brought up four children and having come across assorted articles indicating that all is not well in standards of numeracy and literacy, the old style of education has not produced the required results.

If it's failed us in the past why go backwards?
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 9 March 2008 12:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It will not be an exagerration to say that the "SMS"culture has caused no small contribution to the ruining of English.This is a world in hurry. In the process language , culture and good human qualities are given a big go-bye.Let adults be good role models for the youth and let us shun cinema which takes people away from reality.
Posted by Ezhil, Sunday, 9 March 2008 12:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol-We cannot move forward to a contemporary style of education. Contemporary is now. Make our education futuristic! A meaningful learning experience! Give over-we need to make sure that basic English grammar is known and these days it is not known and for the last 20 years it has not been known. Likewise basic maths and basic science. My son is far brighter than I, but stuffed without a calculator when it comes to using numbers, particularly in dealing with multiplication of numbers greater than ten, or fractions, and he hasn't a clue as to how English is structured, even though he is fully and fluently bi-lingual in two radically different languages. We need to enhance language teaching so that once again modern languages are taught properly, not 6 months of this here and bit of that there. It would indeed be futuristic to teach a tonal Asian language right through the primary level, and to start children at primary school at 3 or 4 rather than 6.

Let's quantify my "old", even though gentlemen should be reticent about their age. I'm talking about 40-50 years ago, when by an early age kids actually knew that Spain was not part of Scandinavia. And they/we could do "mental arithmetic" without calculators. HOW you teach them I don't care, as long as the basics are taught thoroughly and so that they stick for a lifetime.
Posted by HenryVIII, Sunday, 9 March 2008 3:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The English language is evolving so fast that Marcel Proust's famous work ," In Search of Lost Time"; earlier translated as "Remembrance of Things Past" has had to be translated 3 times since it was written in 1913-1923 to keep pace with the changes in English usage.

Henry VIII - I don't think schools spend enough time teaching science students how to write essays or reports. Inevitably university tutors and teachers have to provide remedial English instruction to native English speakers.

I am pleased that English expression used in business writing has become more direct over the past century, although many proponents of business writing have never read a style guide.

Without a grounding in linguistics, I think I am widely read enough to apply gerunds appropriately in English even though I just discovered its meaning.
Posted by billie, Sunday, 9 March 2008 4:06:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think there is some confusion here between the teaching and appreciation of the complexities of English and its (inevitable) evolution. Of course the language constantly evolves, picking up words all over the place – that is why English has more words than any other language and is so inconsistent in its pronunciation and spelling. This has very little to do with the proper understanding of the structure of English – its nouns, verbs, subjects, objects, predicates, gerunds, infinitives (split and otherwise)… and all those things that used to be taught to baby boomers at school. Knowing this stuff, and how to speak and write fluent, accurate and elegant English doesn’t mean we can’t communicate happily in jargon, slang or textish – it just equips us to operate using the full potential of our language when the occasion arises.

To have students presenting at university with inadequate literacy skills after 12 years at school is appalling. You have to wonder what value a university education actually has these days if they are prepared to offer places to the semi-literate.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 10 March 2008 10:49:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, for the Good Old Days when all the best people knew how to spel.

And new there grandma.

And everything was neat and tidy and the working class were kept in their place and out of universities.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 10 March 2008 10:58:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl, why did you write "Comma's" with an apostrophe?

Are you suggesting that _I_ neglected to include an apostrophe?!?

**shudders**

I rest MY case.
Posted by petal, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 3:18:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate’s been pretty much covered but just a few points …

I’ve been a publishing editor for 20 years and am used to editing manuscripts written by authors from all age groups. Overall, I have noticed no difference whatever in the English standards of authors who went to school either pre- or post 80s.

Even so, any supposed lack of spelling and grammar skills is no big deal for aspiring writers and I don’t know why King is making such a big issue of it. Should they ever be published, King’s students will have moved through an established publishing process – from literary agents through to acquisition/sub-editors to copy editors – that will clean up any deficiencies in their grammar, syntax, expression etc. More often than not, professional literary agents and/or editors end up re-writing about 5-10 per cent of a published work.

(And, by the way, does anyone ever stop to consider that one reason why English standards may appear to have declined in recent decades is that the workplace impact of the desktop computer – which now requires everyone to do their own correspondence – has exposed a lot of poor English that used to be cleaned up by the humble but once ubiquitous stenographer!)

And on the subject of the supposed decline of English standards ... while many other languages are desperately trying to stay alive, English has the opposite problem of having become far too dominant for its own good. As the language of international business, politics and technology, English has to move with corresponding speed and intensity - which makes many of the established linguistic rules redundant. There is also a strong likelihood that English will buckle under inevitable global pressures from bi-lingual cultures and English-speaking sub-cultures to fragment it.

The struggle to keep old-curriculum English standards on life support is well meaning – often interesting – but increasingly irrelevant.
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 11:02:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF-I appreciate your experience and comments. I have reviewed for scientific journals a good number of papers in the last 20 years as well as having had to deal with governmnetal bureaucratese. English is a language which is wonderfully flexible and is evolving continuously, and one in which it extremely easy to be thoroughly ambiguous to the point of total confusion whilst sounding as if one means something. My concerns, and those shared by some of my colleagues, is simply that the failure to properly teach English grammar leads to incompetent communication. I am not interested in maintaining life-support systems for curricula, but am concerned that in written communication succinctness and precision are often hard to find these days. Education Departments seem to be among the worst sinners in this respect.
Posted by HenryVIII, Wednesday, 12 March 2008 9:56:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have noticed a radical departure in English comprehension in school kids from say the 70s to now. There are flaws in King's argument too but one thing that is astounding is the nit picking.

Frankgol made some good points and then spoilt it by his lack of understanding of learning cycles in childhood education or the reasons why there is a push for a national school curriculum. He rightly pointed out that the article was written from a vocationalist persepctive.

It would make good sense for Rudd to bring this on now as there is a clear majority (except for those still left of left and who are being left behind) of Australians who want a national curriculum, not only in English but across the board.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 13 March 2008 7:48:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy