Rutgers English Department to deemphasize traditional grammar ‘in solidarity with Black Lives Matter’

[laughing dog]

Reading between them? Non. I was trying to understand the original intent.

Since you failed to understand it, you are either reading between the lines or completely off the page.

Yes, at first I believe I failed to understand it. I had the shadow of an idea of what it might be trying to convey but doubted myself, because it's a typical member of the species 'academic gobbledygook'.

I applied more effort into understanding it, which is why I believe your understanding about the first sentence to be wrong, for the reasons I've given. But that I was able to pry the meaning out, kicking and screaming, doesn't mean it wasn't an awful piece of writing.

I am pretty sure you still don't understand it given the amount of "interpretation" you had to invent to create that head-numbing word salad of post 34.

You are certainly entitled to your aesthetics about what constitutes an "awful piece of writing". Fortunately, no one is required to accept your aesthetic judgments as the final word.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, at first I believe I failed to understand it. I had the shadow of an idea of what it might be trying to convey but doubted myself, because it's a typical member of the species 'academic gobbledygook'.

I applied more effort into understanding it, which is why I believe your understanding about the first sentence to be wrong, for the reasons I've given. But that I was able to pry the meaning out, kicking and screaming, doesn't mean it wasn't an awful piece of writing.

I am pretty sure you still don't understand it given the amount of "interpretation" you had to invent to create that head-numbing word salad of post 34.

You are certainly entitled to your aesthetics about what constitutes an "awful piece of writing". Fortunately, no one is required to accept your aesthetic judgments as the final word.

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

 

[Toni]

Yes, at first I believe I failed to understand it. I had the shadow of an idea of what it might be trying to convey but doubted myself, because it's a typical member of the species 'academic gobbledygook'.

I applied more effort into understanding it, which is why I believe your understanding about the first sentence to be wrong, for the reasons I've given. But that I was able to pry the meaning out, kicking and screaming, doesn't mean it wasn't an awful piece of writing.

I am pretty sure you still don't understand it given the amount of "interpretation" you had to invent to create that head-numbing word salad of post 34.

You are certainly entitled to your aesthetics about what constitutes an "awful piece of writing". Fortunately, no one is required to accept your aesthetic judgments as the final word.

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

Well, I understood it quite well.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, at first I believe I failed to understand it. I had the shadow of an idea of what it might be trying to convey but doubted myself, because it's a typical member of the species 'academic gobbledygook'.

I applied more effort into understanding it, which is why I believe your understanding about the first sentence to be wrong, for the reasons I've given. But that I was able to pry the meaning out, kicking and screaming, doesn't mean it wasn't an awful piece of writing.

I am pretty sure you still don't understand it given the amount of "interpretation" you had to invent to create that head-numbing word salad of post 34.

You are certainly entitled to your aesthetics about what constitutes an "awful piece of writing". Fortunately, no one is required to accept your aesthetic judgments as the final word.

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

You're the only one struggling with it, and that's because you're trying to wrangle it into your pre-conceived assumptions about higher ed rather than just calming down and thinking about it for a sec.

 

[Metaphor]

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

You're the only one struggling with it, and that's because you're trying to wrangle it into your pre-conceived assumptions about higher ed rather than just calming down and thinking about it for a sec.

Non. I may have "struggled" with it but the multiple interpretations given in this thread indicate it was not, in fact, a lucid paragraph.

As for my "pre-conceived" notions about higher education, I can hardly see how that could cause me to misinterpret a lucid piece of writing, no matter how strong the prejudice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, at first I believe I failed to understand it. I had the shadow of an idea of what it might be trying to convey but doubted myself, because it's a typical member of the species 'academic gobbledygook'.

I applied more effort into understanding it, which is why I believe your understanding about the first sentence to be wrong, for the reasons I've given. But that I was able to pry the meaning out, kicking and screaming, doesn't mean it wasn't an awful piece of writing.

I am pretty sure you still don't understand it given the amount of "interpretation" you had to invent to create that head-numbing word salad of post 34.

You are certainly entitled to your aesthetics about what constitutes an "awful piece of writing". Fortunately, no one is required to accept your aesthetic judgments as the final word.

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

You were not the target audience and are unqualified.

 

[Metaphor]

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

You were not the target audience and are unqualified.

Unqualified to read sentences in English?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

You were not the target audience and are unqualified.

Unqualified to read sentences in English?

You are not an English professor, just a professor of English and not a good one.

C-

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, at first I believe I failed to understand it. I had the shadow of an idea of what it might be trying to convey but doubted myself, because it's a typical member of the species 'academic gobbledygook'.

I applied more effort into understanding it, which is why I believe your understanding about the first sentence to be wrong, for the reasons I've given. But that I was able to pry the meaning out, kicking and screaming, doesn't mean it wasn't an awful piece of writing.

I am pretty sure you still don't understand it given the amount of "interpretation" you had to invent to create that head-numbing word salad of post 34.

You are certainly entitled to your aesthetics about what constitutes an "awful piece of writing". Fortunately, no one is required to accept your aesthetic judgments as the final word.

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

If you are not the intended audience, then you have no idea whether or not it failed in its primary purpose. So, your conclusion is based on your aesthetic standards.

 

[Metaphor]

Unqualified to read sentences in English?

You are not an English professor, just a professor of English and not a good one.

C-

I have not asked you to grade my posts and I suggest that you stop, as this is now a repeated behaviour with the effect of bullying and harassing me.

 

[Metaphor]

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

If you are not the intended audience, then you have no idea whether or not it failed in its primary purpose. So, your conclusion is based on your aesthetic standards.

I can read English and I can judge what's well written and what isn't.

 

[Politesse]

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

If you are not the intended audience, then you have no idea whether or not it failed in its primary purpose. So, your conclusion is based on your aesthetic standards.

I can read English and I can judge what's well written and what isn't.

If you were an English professor, you could tell us why.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unqualified to read sentences in English?

You are not an English professor, just a professor of English and not a good one.

C-

I have not asked you to grade my posts and I suggest that you stop, as this is now a repeated behaviour with the effect of bullying and harassing me.

Uh, bullshit. You made many grammatical errors while not comprehending the points you railed against. My point in showing your grammatical errors was to teach you that you believe your argument is far more important than sticking to traditional grammar. So, you actually now 100% have disproved the point you tried to make in the first place. But different from those students you want to grade using SAE grammar rules weighted very strongly, you actually have a failed argument. So, your posts are far worse.

 

[Metaphor]

Uh, bullshit. You made many grammatical errors

Like what?

while not comprehending the points you railed against. My point in showing your grammatical errors was to teach you that you believe your argument is far more important than sticking to traditional grammar. So, you actually now 100% have disproved the point you tried to make in the first place.

What point do you believe I was trying to make?

But different from those students you want to grade using SAE grammar rules weighted very strongly, you actually have a failed argument. So, your posts are far worse.

It beggars belief that you think I expressed any opinion at all on whether it was a good or bad idea to grade students 'using SAE grammar rules weighted very strongly'. Since you evidently think I expressed a belief one way or another, you can be kind enough to show me where.

I expressed a belief that the chair of the English department wrote a poorly-worded paragraph about the department's plans with respect to critical grammar theory.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Edited...

I will just say the terms employed are directed to faculty with degrees. Not understanding it by laymen is expected. Being loud and opinionated about it in ignorance is Dunning Kruger. Arguing vapid points while willfully ignorant of the nature of the technical note to faculty and making grammar error after error is beyond surreal irony. It's a complete failure.

 

[Metaphor]

Edited...

I will just say the terms employed are directed to faculty with degrees.

I have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree, both with first class honours. I can also assure you that I have sent and received many emails as student or staff member during my time in academia, and I don't recall reading anything as badly constructed as that paragraph about critical grammar.

Not understanding it by laymen is expected.

Actually, I would hope that an email sent to staff and students would be readily understood by an intelligent adult with no particular specialist knowledge.

Being loud and opinionated about it in ignorance is Dunning Kruger.

Reading a paragraph of sentences written in English, and judging it as poorly written, is not a claim to specialist knowledge.

Arguing vapid points while willfully ignorant of the nature of the technical note to faculty and making grammar error after error is beyond surreal irony. It's a complete failure.

I've written technical notes that concern statistical techniques and analyses. A letter to staff and students about what the English department plans to do is not a technical note, to faculty or to anyone else.

You've mentioned 'grammar error after error' before--though I'll note that I've asked you for an example and you have demurred on producing one.

Nevertheless, twice you've 'graded' my posts (as a C-), a petty attempt to harass and bully me.

You've quoted a post screaming 'FAKE GRAMMAR' at a sentence I constructed with a deliberate Australian English 'but' final particle. The irony of your action is, I'm sure, completely lost on you.

You also keep screaming 'DUNNING KRUGER', as if by incantation you can conjure a coherent point, a spell to silence your debaters.

I'm not impressed by your poison-pen campaign, Don2.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am not familiar with what the term Critical Grammar actually means, and I'm sure it can mean different things, but as far as I can see, something it claims (or Rather Rutger University claims on its behalf) is to be not about lowering standards in order to increase diversity and inclusion, but merely about understanding the ways in which language (specifically grammar I suppose) has political and social implications, including in relation to things like power, hegemony, inclusion and diversity, in order to then make informed, critical choices about grammar.

This seems to be borne out in the (previously quoted here) part of the Rutgers email under the sub-heading "Incorporating 'critical grammar' into our pedagogy", when it says:

This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents."

In which the second, green part contrasts with the first, red part, in such a way as to suggest that lowering standards (specifically the lowering of standards which is apparently already 'familiar dogma') is pretty much the opposite of what is intended.

Ok, so far so good. Standards are not under threat, in fact the University, using a Critical Grammar approach, is going in the opposite direction.

But after googling, specifically with the intention of finding a concrete example of Critical Grammar that might clarify, I found this article, which as far as I can tell, promotes a Critical Grammar pedagogy:

The Writer and The Sentence: A Critical Grammar Pedagogy Valuing the Micro
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=open_access_dissertations

Here is an excerpt:

""Ivanič reveals this in her case study of John, who is described as “highly involved with Aids campaigning”. John’s example, really a small detail in Ivanič’s larger study regarding relationships between discourse and identity construction, involves a decision-making process in a medical ethics paper, a process that only becomes conscious thanks to Ivanič’s awareness. She asks John about his choice to use the word “Aids” in this paper, asking him about his decision to represent Aids as a word rather than an acronym. She explains that she knew there was a difference between how writers use this word, did he? He says that he was not aware of a political difference between the choices. Ivanič shares that she knows that the word Aids is one way to represent the social context of the disease, and not its biological impact/AIDS. After learning about the difference, packaged in the word/acronym Aids/AIDS, he tells Ivanič he will “continue to do so,” which I take to mean, he will continue to write the word Aids. While John’s choice does not change, his understanding of what this choice means in its given context does change, and in this way, John’s choice of Aids is a critical choice."

Which, unless I'm misunderstanding it, is permitting John to make a 'critical, informed choice' to continue using the incorrect term (Aids rather than AIDS)? If so, this sort of Critical Grammar (which seems to be the same sort as in the OP article, in that it's about critical awareness) is not doing what it says on the Rutgers tin.

Unless of course I am wrong, and there is such a thing as 'Aids (capitalised) campaigning' in the medical ethics sphere regarding AIDS, to represent the social context of the disease rather than the biological. If so, that would be news to me, if not to Ivanič. Although she is the professor of Linguistics and acclaimed as a prominent expert on literacy, not me.

 

[laughing dog]

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

If you are not the intended audience, then you have no idea whether or not it failed in its primary purpose. So, your conclusion is based on your aesthetic standards.

I can read English and I can judge what's well written and what isn't.

I did say you couldn't. You are entitled to your aesthetic standards. However, the fact you did not understand it at first (or, at all, IMO) does not mean it did not communicate information lucidly to the intended audience, since you were not the intended audience.

 

[Politesse]

I am not familiar with what the term Critical Grammar actually means, and I'm sure it can mean different things, but as far as I can see, something it claims (or Rather Rutger University claims on its behalf) is to be not about lowering standards in order to increase diversity and inclusion, but merely about understanding the ways in which language (specifically grammar I suppose) has political and social implications, including in relation to things like power, hegemony, inclusion and diversity, in order to then make informed, critical choices about grammar.

This seems to be borne out in the (previously quoted here) part of the Rutgers email under the sub-heading "Incorporating 'critical grammar' into our pedagogy", when it says:

This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents."

In which the second, green part contrasts with the first, red part, in such a way as to suggest that lowering standards (specifically the lowering of standards which is apparently already 'familiar dogma') is pretty much the opposite of what is intended.

Ok, so far so good. Standards are not under threat, in fact the University, using a Critical Grammar approach, is going in the opposite direction.

But after googling, specifically with the intention of finding a concrete example of Critical Grammar that might clarify, I found this article, which as far as I can tell, promotes a Critical Grammar pedagogy:

The Writer and The Sentence: A Critical Grammar Pedagogy Valuing the Micro
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=open_access_dissertations

Here is an excerpt:

""Ivanič reveals this in her case study of John, who is described as “highly involved with Aids campaigning”. John’s example, really a small detail in Ivanič’s larger study regarding relationships between discourse and identity construction, involves a decision-making process in a medical ethics paper, a process that only becomes conscious thanks to Ivanič’s awareness. She asks John about his choice to use the word “Aids” in this paper, asking him about his decision to represent Aids as a word rather than an acronym. She explains that she knew there was a difference between how writers use this word, did he? He says that he was not aware of a political difference between the choices. Ivanič shares that she knows that the word Aids is one way to represent the social context of the disease, and not its biological impact/AIDS. After learning about the difference, packaged in the word/acronym Aids/AIDS, he tells Ivanič he will “continue to do so,” which I take to mean, he will continue to write the word Aids. While John’s choice does not change, his understanding of what this choice means in its given context does change, and in this way, John’s choice of Aids is a critical choice."

Which, unless I'm misunderstanding it, is permitting John to make a 'critical, informed choice' to continue using the incorrect term (Aids rather than AIDS)? If so, this sort of Critical Grammar (which seems to be the same sort as in the OP article, in that it's about critical awareness) is not doing what it says on the Rutgers tin.

Unless of course I am wrong, and there is such a thing as 'Aids (capitalised) campaigning' in the medical ethics sphere regarding AIDS, to represent the social context of the disease rather than the biological. If so, that would be news to me, if not to Ivanič. Although she is the professor of Linguistics and acclaimed as a prominent expert on literacy, not me.

Critical pedagogy is defined by the questions you ask, not the conclusions you come to. There are a multitude of teaching strategies that might conceivably result from critically considering the social context of knowledge production. But it does sound like Ivanic's example comes close to what Rutgers is proposing. Note that John is now aware of the rule he is supposedly breaking, and how it might impact reception in certain contexts while being appropriate for others. The idea is not to eliminate grammatical rules, only to reduce their value and utility as a weapon of class warfare, restoring them to their original role as facilitators of clear communication.

 

[Toni]

The writing was not awful because it didn't live up to some 'aesthetical' standard. The writing was awful because it failed in its primary purpose: to communicate information lucidly.

If you are not the intended audience, then you have no idea whether or not it failed in its primary purpose. So, your conclusion is based on your aesthetic standards.

I can read English and I can judge what's well written and what isn't.

I am 100% certain that you could write something of a technical nature relating to your discipline that most of us would have difficulty following and would find poorly written. I am equally certain that I could do the same for my discipline as could probably any of the other respondents in this thread. That's what happened here. Someone wrote to professional colleagues using the technical vernacular that is used in their discipline and its meaning seems unclear to you. Different disciplines have different conventions in writing. So what? This is something my husband and I have noted when discussing or proof reading each other's technical writing.

In a way, your sentence above, which I bolded, is the entire point of what you linked in the OP. I am also equally certain that you could write something in an Australian vernacular that we Yanks would have difficulty parsing out and would think was poorly written. I know that I could do the same for you--or even just quote some great American literature for the same. And that's the point: People from a variety of backgrounds may have different speech patterns, different uses of words or even different vocabularies that they use to express themselves---and that should not be punished by poor grades or overly correcting grammar, syntax, etc.

I have noticed over the course of my lifetime how flattened out and homogenized American English has become, how regional accents and colloquialisms are being flattened out and lost, losing, imo, a great deal of the character and richness of American English in all of its varieties. It is one thing to write a technical piece, which is generally devoid of any regional flavors and quite another to write a descriptive piece, meant to evoke the feeling and sense of a person or place or event or time. And of course, one of the most sure ways to discourage writers is to criticize their writing for not conforming to some upper middle class usage. There is a lot of color and depth of meaning and understanding that can be flattened out or lost entirely.

I don't think anyone here questions that you are well educated but it does seem to me that you either do struggle with understanding/accepting anything outside of the narrow range of your personal preferences and experiences and are quick to condemn anyone and anything that does not conform to your standards--or pretend to do so for the sake of argument. I don't know which is true. Perhaps something else entirely.