Grammar as CrossDisciplinary Inquiry Adam Katz Justin Hayes

Grammar as Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry Adam Katz Justin Hayes Department of English Quinnipiac University

“In view of the widespread agreement of research studies based upon many types of students and teachers, the conclusion can be stated in strong and unqualified terms: the teaching of grammar has a negligible or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in composition, even a harmful effect on improvement in writing. ” –Braddock Report (1963)

Grammatical fluency is achieved as part of the tacit acquisition of language. –Patrick Hartwell, “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar” (1985) Language is tacitly acquired in “chunks of discourse. ” –Nattinger, James R. , and Jeannette S. De. Carrico. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching (1992) Chunks of discourse constitute “commonplaces. ” –David Bartholomae, Writing on the Margins (2005)

First-year students tend to demonstrate grammatical fluency in the reproduction of commonplaces that happen to be grammatically correct, rather than through attention to specific grammatical relationships.

Until we can understand the assumptions in which we are drenched we cannot know ourselves. And this drive to self-knowledge, for women, is more than a search for identity: it is part of our refusal of the selfdestructiveness of male-dominated society. (Rich 522)

Until we can understand the assumptions in which we are drenched we cannot know ourselves. And this drive to selfknowledge, for women, is more than a search for identity: it is part of our refusal of the selfdestructiveness of male-dominated society. (Rich 522) Throughout history women have struggled against male domination in society. However, women have refused to succumb to this domination and have earned rights such as to own land vote. Although women have made incredible progress, there is still a ways to go. According to Rich, women are still searching for the identity and equality they will someday achieve. (Student reading)

Until we can understand the assumptions in which we are drenched we cannot know ourselves. And this drive to selfknowledge, for women, is more than a search for identity: it is part of our refusal of the selfdestructiveness of male-dominated society. (Rich 522) Throughout history women have struggled against male domination in society. However, women have refused to succumb to this domination and have earned rights such as to own land vote. Although women have made incredible progress, there is still a ways to go. According to Rich, women are still searching for the identity and equality they will someday achieve. (Student reading)

(Re-vision) Assignment: Reading Grammatically Against the Grain To demonstrate reading the current text (Freire, Rich, Pratt, or Foucault) “against the grain” of another student’s (or your) essay, present the same passage of text and use it to challenge the main idea of that essay in order to transform it into a new idea. To do this, • Point out a specific part of the passage you will be reading against the grain of the student’s main idea. • Identify the grammatical elements of this part of the passage and cite their function(s) from The College Writer’s Reference. • Explain what the words of this part of the passage say when read according to how they are related by the grammatical rule(s) you cited. • Explain how this grammatical reading of the passage transforms the student’s main idea into a new one.

Until we can understand the assumptions in which we are drenched we cannot know ourselves. And this drive to self-knowledge, for women, is more than a search for identity: it is part of our refusal of the self-destructiveness of male-dominated society. (Rich 522) --’s main idea can be disproven through the usage of commas in this passage. According to the College Writers Reference, “Elements that are essential to the meaning of the sentence are called restrictive. Elements that are nonessential or nonrestrictive can be removed without destroying the meaning of a sentence. Use commas to set off nonrestrictive elements” (418). Rich sets off the phrase “for women” with commas. When this phrase is removed, the meaning of the sentence is not destroyed. It becomes: “And this drive to self-knowledge is more than a search for identity: it is part of our refusal of the self-destructiveness of male dominated society. ” This shows that “for women” is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. If read this way, the sentence can be interpreted to mean that this drive for self knowledge is about women only on the surface, and that it actually effects both men and women. Therefore, when Rich talks about “knowing ourselves, ” she is really referring to all of us, men and women.

Until we can understand the assumptions in which we are drenched we cannot know ourselves. And this drive to self -knowledge, for women, is more than a search for identity: it is part of our refusal of the self-destructiveness of maledominated society. (Rich 522) -- is correct that this drive to self knowledge is more than a search for identity. However, her argument that it is “identity and equality” is not supported by the passage. Colons “introduce an explanation, an example, a list, or a quotation” (CWR 427). The part of the sentence after the colon can be read as an explanation of the part before the colon. Therefore, -- is correct that the drive to selfknowledge is about more than “identity. ” But this more is not “equality”; it is “the refusal of the self-destructiveness of male-dominated society, ” which explains more about what the drive to self-knowledge is.

• In addition, it seems to me that Tomkins’ “system” also, in a way, puts blame on the authors themselves for having such inconsistent views and accounts of the relationship at hand. What stood out for me about this was when she states, “In simpler language, it concerns the difference that point of view makes when people are giving accounts of events, whether at first or second hand. The problem is that if all accounts of events are determined through and through by the observers’ frame of reference, then one will never know, in any given case, what really happened. ” (Tomkins, 648) Here, I believe that Tomkins is trying to state that she has trouble finding a true answer about the relationship, based on the problem of the authors about their slanted accounts and views maybe brought about because of their own perceptions and personal biases, but to me, it seems that Tomkins is indirectly putting blame on the authors presented in her text for her not being able to arrive at her desired conclusion because of their conflicts. To me, Tomkins blames the authors, indirectly of course, for her own inability to derive a desired, or even “biased, ” conclusion of her own based upon their inconsistencies of accounts, and this plays a prevailing role, I think, later on in her conclusion at the end. Nonetheless, in her examining of the different authors’ essays and works of literature in her own, she both “Reads With and Against the Grain” in order to try to reach a truthful conclusion on the Euro-Indian relationship and where it had actually stood in history. For Tomkins, this proves most important.

Error: “based on the problem of the authors about their slanted accounts and views” Error identified as a problem of not knowing a rule of grammar or of not proofreading. Correction: “because of the personal biases of the authors” (reproduced commonplace/closing of inquiry)

Error: “the problem of the authors about their slanted accounts and views” Error identified as a mark of inquiry: of the authors the problem about their slanted accounts and views (disrupted commonplace/opening of inquiry) Corrections: the problem of the authors and their slanted accounts and views the problem of the authors or their slanted accounts and views the problem of either the authors or their slanted accounts and views the problem of neither the authors nor their slanted accounts and views the problem of both the authors and their slanted accounts and views the problem of not only the authors but also their slanted accounts and views

“Tomkins is trying to state. . . ”

How, in your own courses, might grammar provide a pedagogical strategy for disrupting the reproduction of commonplaces and helping students to negotiate the particular uses of language that underwrite disciplinary inquiry?