MC Grammar

So, I'll admit it.  I actually had a difficult time reading Bomer's chapter on language and grammar because, at heart, I am a grammar nazi.  As much as I attempt to resist the chains of commas and misplaced modifiers, I am a rules follower by nature, and I actually like the structure that "proper" grammar affords me.  Or maybe it's really because following grammar rules is more like a secret game that I play (I love to win, and I love playing games that guarantee my victory--I like to think that more times than not, I am winning the grammar games).  So, while a lot of what Bomer presented on talking about language as more of a linguistic structure makes sense, it will still be tough for me not to want to mark obvious grammatical mistakes.  I've seen teachers in a community college setting that do mark all over their students' papers, and I know what happens--the students feel overwhelmed with the bleeding ink everywhere (even if the ink is purple or something) and they don't even attempt to decipher what the teacher has probably spent hours marking.  And if it doesn't work in higher education, it will probably not work in a high school setting.

The problem with avoiding grammar to talk about language development and structure is that it's a whole area that is supposed to be covered, according to the TEKS.  They try to pretend like they're not addressing grammar by calling it "oral and written conventions," but it's there.  ("Writing legibly" is also under this TEKS subheading, just fyi.)  And in a way, I agree with them.  I hate sounding like an old school rule follower, but I've seen the difference that it makes when people know how to correctly use punctuation.  Their resumes look sharper, their college essays look smarter, and their professional e-mails look, well, professional.  I realize that a lot of grammatical conventions are silly.  Who even came up with some of these rules?  And they're always changing, which makes knowing the rules seem untenable.  However, when you clue your students into these little details, I think that you're showing your students the "hidden curriculum."  You're helping them to use the dominant culture's tools for exclusion to their advantage.  And how can that hurt your students, as long as they know where these so-called rules are coming from?

There is a problem with time constraints, though.  There is so much material to cover in a class period that there doesn't seem to be any extra time for teaching "finer" points of grammar, even when those "conventions" are required to be covered by the TEKS.  Also, for students who are still working to use and understand the English language, grammar rules seem to be a little beside the point.  This is all to say: Randy Bomer, bless your heart, but I still think grammar has a place.

For anyone who's interested, I think that the grammatical problem that I explain the most often in a tutoring session is the dreaded comma splice.  Most people think that the phrase means that there's a comma in a place where it's not supposed to go, and I have to get into a discussion of the frailty of a comma all on it's own, stuck between two complete, heavy sentences.  So please, don't leave that comma hangin'.

P.S. I went to another football game this past Friday night.  REAGAN WON!  I think it's their second win this season, which is probably more games won than the last four years combined.  As weird as it sounds, I think it really boosts school morale.  I never thought that sports were that important, but now that I'm in Texas high school football land, I am experiencing the seriousness afforded to the almighty pigskin.  I shouted, jeered, and cheered on the bleachers with the rest of 'em, though.  When in East Austin...GO RAIDERS!