gc
Response/Reaction Paper – The Importance of Grammar
Scholars and intellectuals alike have a common consensus over the importance of grammar
debate; they overwhelmingly believe that grammar is important if not essential when trying to
convey ideas. Grammar is used to increase comprehension; this means that it can be a useful tool
when writing, but is it essential? I don’t believe that the use of proper grammar is necessary when
trying to get a message across. The content is significantly more important than the grammar.
Grammar might help the authors thoughts flow eloquently, but if the overall purpose is not lost in its
absence, then grammar is not NECESSARY. In fact, misusing grammar is necessary for some
authors – such as in poems, or in novels that are trying to portray uneducated language. I am
somewhere in the middle of the extremes in this debate. One side believes that without grammar the
thought loses all meaning, while the other believes that grammar shouldn’t be used at all. I believe
that the importance of grammar increases when writing a piece that requires the author to be
professional; however, when the piece is supposed to be creative, it is substantially more effective to
use grammar when it works for what you are writing.
Kyle Wiens, author of “I Won’t Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar. Here’s Why”, would
disagree with my opinion because he deems grammar absolutely necessary. He practices his belief in
his company “IFixit” – misusing grammar is basically a one way trip out the door for prospect
workers looking to be hired by his firm. He states that “They deserve to be passed over for a job –
Even if they are otherwise qualified for the position.” He then supports his statement by saying “I’ve
found that people who make fewer mistakes on a grammar test also make fewer mistakes when they
are doing something completely unrelated to writing – like stocking shelves or labeling parts.” Both
of these ideas seem absurd to me for various reasons. The first statement fails because a prospect
employee can be the best at what he does, but can lack grammar skills for some reason. The prospect
employee might be from a different country, and is only good at programming not writing. The
second statement fails because he is biased. He may notice people making mistakes when they are
bad at grammar, because that is what he wants to see. In Kyle’s defense, he owns a company that
writes repair manuals. It is important for most of his employees to have grammar skills; but I still
don’t think it’s necessary for all employees. Another article against my belief was written by Liz
Wolegemuth. Liz believes that people that don’t use grammar properly are being lazy and they need
to improve the way they communicate. Most of the article was focused on using grammar online. I
think that using grammar improperly while composing a message to a friend is not an offence. LOL
im down da block. Where u at?? Is appropriate when a friend knows what you are saying. If the
gc
meaning is intact without being grammatically correct, then why waste time fixing it? She thinks that
improper uses of grammar “Conveys a tone, as well, that suggests the writer didn’t take the time to
use proper grammar because the reader wasn’t worth it.” I can assure her that my friends do not think
that I think they are worthless. Actually, most of my friends might not know what is grammatically
correct, because, according to her article “schools have stopped teaching it”. My use of correct
grammar might seem other worldly to some of my friends. The text speak I use when
communicating, is often times more expressive then if I used grammatically correct sentences, I
don’t want them to lose the meaning by confusing them with unnecessary mechanics.
Two articles have similar viewpoints to my theory. The first is called “Why do we care about
grammar?” The article states that “There is no reason why proper grammar should be valued so
highly”. Then it goes on saying that some grammatical errors can invoke “a sense of personality and
style that most other phrases remain unable to do.” Grammar is meant to aid with comprehension, if
its absence is actually able to enhance the meaning, then the case against grammar grows even
stronger. The opponents to this idea are probably picky and are easily annoyed. It matters so much to
some, that they find the idea of the lack of grammar “depressing”. They believe that bad grammar is
an indication of a bad writer – yet even Shakespeare made common grammar mistakes; such as using
double negatives. How can one call Shakespeare, arguably the best writer, a bad writer? The second
article titled “Language evolution and why grammar sometimes doesn’t matter” agrees with most of
my ideas. The article emphasizes that “Good grammar is what works”. If grammar doesn’t work well
for conveying your idea then it is just weighing your idea down. Why would someone want to use the
“correct” way when it is incorrect?
The articles for grammar, fail to see the point of those that are against grammar. They are
being single minded. Both of the articles against the usage of grammar agree that grammar can be
misused at times but are not consenting for the document to contain many grammatical errors, they
merely want the works idea to be heard in the best way possible. If that best way means a lack of
grammar is better, than so be it.
I am not saying that I don’t want grammar to be used, I am simply saying that it isn’t
necessary at all times, and that, it is not an indicator of someone’s work ethic. Language is evolving
and grammar cannot catch up, one cannot possibly stick to old ways when new ones are ready to
change things for the better. We must except that in today’s world proper grammar usage will be a
thing of the past. It will be interesting to see if some proponents for grammar usage will change their
mind after seeing the inevitable evolution of the English language.