English Should not be Compulsory in High School

[theprestige]

Well that was a long time ago. I believe that I got only the most basic grammar prior to 6th grade. Past, present, future. How to make a plural.

Subject, object verb. Adverb, adjective. The importance of ordering the parts of speech in conveying meaning. All of this was likely covered in grade school.

But the thing about native language is that most grammar rules get intuited through regular usage. ISTR it's been noted that young children will even intuit grammar rules that don't exist, from the grammar rules they do experience every day. Mis-conjugating non-standard verbs, for example.

But studying a foreign language from scratch requires studying all the grammar and syntax through conscious effort, from the ground up. So I would not expect you to get the same in-depth "remedial" instruction in English, that you would need for Latin.

 

[Leftus]

I am pretty sure that those of us who will never be able to write an essay on what TS Eliot meant by his poems have a great deal to contribute to society and should not have this built in disadvantage at the most important year of our schooling.

I think you have conflated a specific skill with a general one. Yes, not being able to write an essay on TS Eliot, is one thing. Not being able to write an essay at all, is another. Not being able to take someone else's ideas and thoughts (TS Eliot) and express them in your own words is yet another. Even if you aren't going into the arts, and will be largely a scientific field, you still need the ability to put the pen to paper and express ideas that the common person will be able to understand.

Carl Sagan may not have been the greatest astronomer in the world. But his work Cosmos, was world changing. And not because of the science in it, but because of his ability to explain it.

 

[Modified]

I think you have conflated a specific skill with a general one. Yes, not being able to write an essay on TS Eliot, is one thing. Not being able to write an essay at all, is another.

At my high school, at least, they didn't spend any time teaching you how to write essays. They just told you to write one, and graded you on the results.

 

[smartcooky]

Ha! Maybe it was me (Oh wait! Maybe I should have written "Maybe it was I", or should it be "Perhaps you were referring to I" hmmm...).



In this post, I was more specifically referring to people who have somehow made a career writing books about how English should be wrote. People such as Simon Heffer whose book cites his sources of "correct" English as books written in the 19th century, the 1920s all the way up to the 1940s! I believe he admonishes his readers that an adverb should always be followed by a verb, which is a ridiculous assertion, particularly when his book is called "Strictly English"! Ermmm...hello Simon, ya ***** in the bucket!

Here's a good take-down on the grammar prescriptivists such as Heffer and others:



But yeah, you are right about people often thinking they know a rule about English because their teacher told them, but then not being able to apply it (assuming they were even taught it correctly). For example, people will think they are correcting someone when they say, "You mean, 'Roger and I' not 'Roger and Me'"

No, it depends on whether we are talking about the subject (I) or object (Me).

It is a story about Roger and me.

*It is a story about Roger and I.

The latter sounds weird to everyone who hasn't been inculcated with the hypercorrection.

Yes, yes, yes, its all very well to talk about the extremes and imply that all people who insist on correct grammar are overbearing idiots, but there are times where grammar is important, especially if you want to ensure that the message you are sending is the one you intended to send.... unless of course, you really did intend to help your uncle jack off his horse.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

At my high school, at least, they didn't spend any time teaching you how to write essays. They just told you to write one, and graded you on the results.

Same here. Has that changed in the last 50 years?

I think you have conflated a specific skill with a general one. Yes, not being able to write an essay on TS Eliot, is one thing. Not being able to write an essay at all, is another. Not being able to take someone else's ideas and thoughts (TS Eliot) and express them in your own words is yet another. Even if you aren't going into the arts, and will be largely a scientific field, you still need the ability to put the pen to paper and express ideas that the common person will be able to understand.

I am perfectly capable of 'expressing ideas that the common person will be able to understand' on scientific subjects, but ask me to 'express ideas' about a poem and you won't get much. And why should you? A work of art shouldn't need to be explained - it should express itself.

Analyzing artistic works is useful to those who want to produce their own artwork, but for the rest of us it's largely a waste of time. Writing poems is a specific skill. If you think a specific skill is worth learning for general use then I propose students be given the option of analyzing scientific writing instead, which might be a better skill for budding scientists to learn (and I bet a lot easier for them).

I personally struggled with English literature - partly due to lack of familiarity, partly from poor education (teachers were useless at actually teaching), and partly due to lack of social knowledge. But mostly it was because I have a scientific mind that can't handle the BS. And I am not alone.

There is a clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion), which is why students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science. That's not to say that scientists can't also be artists (I was top of my class in art) just that they don't 'understand' it the same.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, yes, yes, its all very well to talk about the extremes and imply that all people who insist on correct grammar are overbearing idiots,

I think it depends on what you mean by "insist" and "correct".

Should the mother be insisting in this (allegedly true) instance, or should she be listening to what her child is actually saying?

Child: Nobody don’t like me.
Mother: No, say ‘nobody likes me’.
Child: Nobody don’t like me.
(Eight repetitions of this exchange)
Mother: No, now listen carefully; say ‘nobody likes me’.
Child: Oh! Nobody don’t likes me.

I think I have also made it pretty clear in the examples I have given that many of those who insist on correct grammar are simply incorrect (insisting on the use of "I" even in the object place, for example).

but there are times where grammar is important, especially if you want to ensure that the message you are sending is the one you intended to send.... unless of course, you really did intend to help your uncle jack off his horse.

Is that a matter of grammar? As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the grammar "I need to help my Uncle Jack off his horse.", but it just happens to be hilariously ambiguous, just as it is in Thomas Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge when the Mayor "beheld the unattractive exterior of Farfrae's erection". It's only the dual meaning of the word "erection" that made our English literature class literally pee themselves laughing, not Hardy's ineptness with grammar.

 

[angrysoba]

There is a clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion), which is why students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science. That's not to say that scientists can't also be artists (I was top of my class in art) just that they don't 'understand' it the same.

Um...evidence?

 

[smartcooky]

Is that a matter of grammar? As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the grammar "I need to help my Uncle Jack off his horse.", but it just happens to be hilariously ambiguous.

Seriously? You do realize that correct capitalisation of proper nouns is part of grammar rules, right?

If you apply the aforementioned correct grammar to this phrase, your so-called 'hilarious ambiguity' disappears.

 

[smartcooky]

Um...evidence?

How about 50+ years of personal observations of family, friends and acquaintances, some of whom are artists and some of whom are technicians and engineers.

Generally speaking, those who excel in art and those who excel in science are wired differently. This is thought to be because the nature of the subjects are so radically different. Art is subjective, it expresses the artist's knowledge and feeling in the form of subjective representation. Science, on the other hand, is objective; it is a system of acquiring knowledge and truth.

Of course, I expect you will reject this... so here is some evidence

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26925271

"Artists have structurally different brains compared with non-artists, a study has found.

... brain scans revealed that artists had increased neural matter in areas relating to fine motor movements and visual imagery."

"The people who are better at drawing really seem to have more developed structures in regions of the brain that control for fine motor performance and what we call procedural memory,"

These detailed scans revealed that the artist group had significantly more grey matter in an area of the brain called the precuneus in the parietal lobe.

"This region is involved in a range of functions but potentially in things that could be linked to creativity, like visual imagery - being able to manipulate visual images in your brain, combine them and deconstruct them,"

All this simply confirms what many have known for years.

 

[angrysoba]

Seriously? You do realize that correct capitalisation of proper nouns is part of grammar rules, right?

Well, then it depends on what you mean by "grammar" as well, then. What you are referring to is a convention of writing. Linguists don't consider that to be grammar, but your school teacher may have done.

If you apply the aforementioned correct grammar to this phrase, your so-called 'hilarious ambiguity' disappears.

Not if someone is speaking out loud.

 

[angrysoba]

How about 50+ years of personal observations of family, friends and acquaintances, some of whom are artists and some of whom are technicians and engineers.

You mean "personal anecdotes"? Sorry, that doesn't fly around here. Or rather it shouldn't.

Of course, I expect you will reject this... so here is some evidence

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26925271

"Artists have structurally different brains compared with non-artists, a study has found.

... brain scans revealed that artists had increased neural matter in areas relating to fine motor movements and visual imagery."

"The people who are better at drawing really seem to have more developed structures in regions of the brain that control for fine motor performance and what we call procedural memory,"

These detailed scans revealed that the artist group had significantly more grey matter in an area of the brain called the precuneus in the parietal lobe.

"This region is involved in a range of functions but potentially in things that could be linked to creativity, like visual imagery - being able to manipulate visual images in your brain, combine them and deconstruct them,"

All this simply confirms what many have known for years.

This is just silly!

Procedural knowledge only relates to the ability to perform certain skills. If someone practices something a lot, then they will get better at it.

It only demonstrates that developing certain skills which require physical movement of some kind leads to the brain becoming better at performing those movements. It does NOT demonstrate a "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)".

It does NOT demonstrate that "students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science"

It does NOT demonstrate that "[scientists] don't 'understand' [art] the same"

 

[smartcooky]

You mean "personal anecdotes"? Sorry, that doesn't fly around here. Or rather it shouldn't.



This is just silly!

Procedural knowledge only relates to the ability to perform certain skills. If someone practices something a lot, then they will get better at it.

It only demonstrates that developing certain skills which require physical movement of some kind leads to the brain becoming better at performing those movements. It does NOT demonstrate a "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)".

It does NOT demonstrate that "students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science"

It does NOT demonstrate that "[scientists] don't 'understand' [art] the same"

Hmmm. Scientist says something, some anonymous guy on the internet disagrees

Who to believe?

 

[angrysoba]

Hmmm. Scientist says something, some anonymous guy on the internet disagrees

Who to believe?

Actually, you are confused about what the scientists were saying. I assume you just Googled "science and art brains different" or something like that, found a BBC article, yelled "Eureka!" and posted it without even bothering to check the science paper it was based on.

The claims I am disputing, which were in the quotes I was responding to, and which I tried to help you out by putting them in bold, are these:

There is a "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)"

Does the science journal show this?

SPOILER: No, it does not!

What does it show?

Ready for this....

It shows that people who spend a lot of time drawing develop fine motor-skills!

That's not the same thing at all as saying that humans are divided into people with logical brains and people with emotional brains, is it?

But guess what? There are all kinds of jobs that are scientifically related that depend on fine motor skills such as surgery or piloting aircraft. Do you think these people have "emotional brains"?

Do you actually know what "procedural knowledge" is?

 

[arthwollipot]

Subject, object verb. Adverb, adjective. The importance of ordering the parts of speech in conveying meaning. All of this was likely covered in grade school.

But the thing about native language is that most grammar rules get intuited through regular usage. ISTR it's been noted that young children will even intuit grammar rules that don't exist, from the grammar rules they do experience every day. Mis-conjugating non-standard verbs, for example.

But studying a foreign language from scratch requires studying all the grammar and syntax through conscious effort, from the ground up. So I would not expect you to get the same in-depth "remedial" instruction in English, that you would need for Latin.

Right. In the most part, it doesn't matter too much. Unless you want to be a writer, which I did. I still make a fair chunk of my living writing for comprehension. So I consider the additional education in grammar to have been valuable.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, then it depends on what you mean by "grammar" as well, then. What you are referring to is a convention of writing. Linguists don't consider that to be grammar, but your school teacher may have done.

Strictly speaking, capitalisation is orthography. Nonetheless, like grammar and characteristics, it is still part of correct writing.

Not if someone is speaking out loud.

Nice goalpost move, very slick, but we were talking about the written word here, not the spoken word.

 

[smartcooky]

Never mind

 

[smartcooky]

Actually, you are confused about what the scientists were saying. I assume you just Googled "science and art brains different" or something like that, found a BBC article, yelled "Eureka!" and posted it without even bothering to check the science paper it was based on.

Not at all like that. I have linked to that article before

But if you are still in doubt, here is some more catch-up reading for you

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19356836/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23460800/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23988273/

Enjoy!

Do you actually know what "procedural knowledge" is?

Yes, I do... and no, I didn't have to google it.

 

[angrysoba]

Strictly speaking, capitalisation is orthography. Nonetheless, like grammar and characteristics, it is still part of correct writing.

Yes, I was telling you that it wasn't grammar! Now you agree with me. That's great. Of course, I did also point out that it depends on what we mean by "insist" and "correct", right smartcooky? Should I insist that you capitalize your handle?

Nice goalpost move, very slick, but we were talking about the written word here, not the spoken word.

We were talking about grammar. As I pointed out, capitalization relates to conventions of writing, not grammar. That was my point. It seems you now agree with me. Good!

 

[angrysoba]

Not at all like that. I have linked to that article before

But if you are still in doubt, here is some more catch-up reading for you

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19356836/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23460800/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23988273/

Okay, lots of links to scientific papers. Care to summarize for me what they say? It is not my job to read them for you.

Yes, I do... and no, I didn't have to google it.

Good, then you will know that procedural knowledge has nothing to do with whether or not someone has a logical brain or an emotional brain does it?

 

[Modified]

Seriously? You do realize that correct capitalisation of proper nouns is part of grammar rules, right?

If you apply the aforementioned correct grammar to this phrase, your so-called 'hilarious ambiguity' disappears.

But then it's still ambiguous though not as hilarious, since "off" can mean "kill".