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. DeCarrico. 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
self-destructiveness 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 and 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
self-destructiveness 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 and 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 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 selfknowledge, 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?