English 326: Blog #2

In this post I worked on using the semi-colon. I like the idea of melding two closely connected but still independent thoughts into one closely tied idea.

Reading the Christensen article and the first two chapters of Grammar Alive! has really changed how I look at grammar and how I will one day teach it. I was always under the impression that teaching grammar would be a systematic and orderly practice of the rules of Standard English. While I think to a certain extent that is still partly the goal, I have become aware that grammar is much more than simply being able to correctly place a comma or semi-colon.

I think that the two works are bound together by the common idea that no form of English is “correct” or “incorrect”; they are both bent on proving that to simply assume that there is only one correct way to write English is a ridiculous and ignorant position. This idea is most clearly illustrated in Grammar Alive! when defining goal C for teaching grammar, “Every student will complete school with an understanding of, and appreciation for, the natural variation that occurs in language across time, social situation, and social group” (Haussamen 4).

This sentiment is mirrored in Christensen, “As teachers, we daily opportunities to affirm that our students’ lives and languages are unique and important.” (Christensen 102).Both of these statements accurately summarize the general theme of acceptance and understanding of everyone’s own culture and language.

The articles also agree however that while it is important to understand and respects students’ own languages, it is also our mission as teachers to teach them Standard English. In Grammar Alive!, this is the central focus of goal A which states that all students should be able to comfortably communicate in both spoken and written English (Haussamen 3-5). Christensen also concurs on this state, though it does appear that she only does this to prepare students for, in her mind at least, an unfair and judgmental world. She calls Standard English the “language of power” says she teaches the “rules” simply because to not do so would be to cheat her students (Christensen 103). Christensen also stresses that it is important to teach Standard English without humiliating students and making them feel like their language is any lesser.

I think at this point in my post it is only fitting that I talk about my feelings on this subject. Now I completely agree that students should know that their own language is not in any way less than any other language. Inclusion and acceptance of every person’s own language is definitely important and something I will set out to do as a future educator. I get the feeling however that both of these works, but more so Christensen, are upset that Standard English dominates; I think she does not like the idea that one type of English is elevated, through its widespread teaching, above the others. I really have no issue with this however. I don’t think that having a standard language that everyone can fall back on is a bad thing in any way. Everyone is clearly entitled to their own language, but I don’t think that by having one “standard” it means we have to look down on the others. A standard language, allows for easier communication between all people and, if taught correctly, does not demean anyone’s own language. It serves to unite, not divide.