I completely understand the author's argument given his position as the head of two very grammar-obsessed companies.
However, I did not agree with his statement that, "Applicants who don't think writing is important are likely to think lots of other (important) things also aren't important."While grammar is key, it is neither the embodiment of writing nor a reliable indicator of an applicant's work ethic or values.
I entirely agree. If the author is going to espouse himself to conservation of linguistic rules as a metaphor for discipline, fine, but couldn't he universalize his argument a little bit less? I mean if we want to take things a step even further, we could say that the innovation that happens when language takes on new, localized forms is pretty akin to the rapid social and technological change that's lately fueled our "knowledge economy"? From a purists' standpoint, I totally love grammar. Structure, and the science of something just a little beyond our understanding are beautiful. However, the same deep structure can be found in rural dialects of English, Ebonics, and sometimes even the logic of just speaking "poorly". I know some jobs require clear, lucid communication for specific audiences and applications- I would hire folks with impeccable language skills for such positions. On the other hand, many, equally valuable jobs will not require grammatical rigor, a point in case being the engineers I have met with pretty "lazy" speaking styles. Lastly, if we follow Mr. Wiens' line of reasoning to the end, wouldn't the man or woman stocking shelves who speaks just a little differently from Standard English come up with a different and more efficient way of performing the job? This is an extreme illustration of Wiens' fallacy, but shows how monolithic the piece's thinking is. In terms of biology: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny- form follows function, and if grammar's forms become relative, then its function within a workplace should also follow suit.
As I see it, there are two misconceptions at stake here in the op-ed author's analysis.
The first is that the author appears to believe that Standard American English (SAE) is the ideal medium of communication in all contexts and for all possible consumers in the business world. This very well may be true in the highly skilled professional context through which he works, but as Daniel points out, this context is not universal. For instance, if I were a funeral director in a neighborhood of Appalachian English (AE) speakers, I would want my employees to be conversant and comfortable with the conventions of Appalachian English. (Sorry for the funeral director example; I'm currently going through a marathon of the TV show "Six Feet Under"). If I operated a community bank in a neighborhood with consumers who are mainly comfortable in Haitian Creole, I would want my employees, managers, etc, to be conversant in that language. The author appears to not even consider that different audiences speaking different languages and dialects might have different business needs than his own.
Second, the author says that ignoring the conventions of SAE grammar makes one look "stupid". I won't argue with his perception: it is true that many people perceive ignoring those conventions means you are unintelligent. But as McWhorter pointed out in this week's readings, dialects are not merely a degradation or bastardization of the American "standard" - they are ways of speaking that are just as complex, valid, and often even more nuanced than the "standard". Eschewing the conventions of SAE is not equal to stupidity: far from it. He has every right to make it a requirement for his employ, but he does not have the facts to back up his half-baked just-so stories about the intellect and language breadth and depth of those whose resumes he tosses to the bottom of the bin.
This is from Emily K., who is having some technical difficulty posting:
I agree with Wiens's stance; excellent grammar and writing skills should be considered a prerequisite for working in any field that requires production of text.
He writes that "Good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet... And, for better or worse, people judge you if you can't tell the difference between their, there, and they're." I agree completely; I would also add that, conversely, bad grammar is a liabililty. In the absence of face-to-face interaction, people (and companies, organizations, etc.) present themselves through written media, and texts that contain grammar (or punctuation, spelling, etc.) mistakes make the entities they represent seem unprofessional (at best.)
At first glance, this article felt too harsh. In his first three paragraphs Wiens goes on a rant on how he has “zero tolerance” for poor grammar. He uses the quote of Tesser, which says that people who mix up their itses should be “struck by lightening”. However, Wiens moves to the reasoning behind his policy. He is the CEO of two companies that deal with writing. If I were Wiens, I would not hire a writer who could not distinguish between “to” and “too” either. However, I do not think that this means that we should write perfectly at all times. Rather, I think Wiens’ point is that careless writing should not be tolerated. It is not about writing flawlessly, but constantly working on your writing so that there are not careless mistakes. I believe that language can be powerful if it is used properly. I think of Martin Luther King Jr.’s writings. I wonder how much time he spent on his sermons, speeches, articles and essays. They are moving and also wonderfully written. Would they be as powerful if they were poorly written?
The only reason I support his strict strategies of hiring people at his companies, is because he has two of the most leading companies that relates to writing. Those particular strategies work for the type of living that he makes. But in other jobs, the "standard English" is not 100% a way of living or a way to labeled someone as not sufficient in a work site. I did not approve with this quote with so many different types of jobs that are in this country alone: "They are a projection of your physical absence...people judge you if you can't tell the difference between their, there, and they're." There are jobs that with minimal writing skills you can have a decent living.
I have two reactions to this editorial. First, I must say that as an English teacher and grammarphile, I have to agree with Weins' point. Especially in such a formal job interview setting, and for such a composition-heavy job, "proper"/standardized academic English is an important factor in hiring. Nevertheless, I have a few criticisms of his argument: - As Weins himself proves with his hanging preposition ("with"), English grammar is fluid and subject to change based on common usage. - I am surprised that he doesn't accept that his programmers may be native code speakers and only proficient in standardized English. They may be functionally bilingual, but prefer (and excel in) code. -"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." Oh really? How scientific.
The purpose of language is to have a common social and cultural basis for understanding and expression. While atrocious grammar certainly eschews abilities to understand and causes others to mis-express themselves, having commas, when, you, don't, need, them, often, does, not, hinder, understanding. To say that one needs perfect grammar is simply an appeasement to classist interests. Underlying the author's argument is a problematic social policy - grammar as an indicator of and proxy for class, education, and social background.
I agree with Wein's stance, for the most part. Like many others have already mentioned, his viewpoint is understandable when considering his line of work. There is an importance to grammar rules, conventions, that when followed, allows the reader greater access to the intent of the writer. I do have a question about his “extenuating circumstances” – it seems pretty narrow and only forgiving to those that have an “acceptable” excuse (an assumption I make based on the two he lists). Do people who aren’t strong in grammar because of racial, cultural, socio-historical factors make the cut? Where does this group of people fit in in his argument? His argument seems very black and white. Going along with that, if he’s saying that grammar and written communication are very important and are key factors in success, what does that mean for the students that we teach? What about Ebonics and changing dialects and etc.?
As the CEO of two companies where using correct grammar is extremely important, Weins makes a valid argument for why he is such a stickler for grammar. However, his argument does not account for people who are not proficient in Standard English. He notes, "I have a "zero tolerance approach" to grammar mistakes that make people look stupid." Stupid is defined as "lacking intelligence or common sense." So do people who lack proficiency in Standard English lack intelligence and common sense as well?
Weins also notes that he requires applicants to take a grammar test and with extenuating circumstances such as dyslexia or English Language Learners aside, applicants need to know proper grammar. In this sentence, he defined whom he expects to write with proper grammar, therefore, for those who have dyslexia or are ELLs, do they qualify to work in his company? Isn’t this a form of discrimination against those with special needs?
weins also argues, “good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet. in blog posts, on facebook statuses, in emails, and on company websites, your words are all you have.” although i agree with this, i believe that typing like this on the internet allows me to practice skills in code switching. i do not think that using proper grammar is necessary in every situation. speaking and writing call for the use of code switching in different situations. typing like this on my fb statuses does not make me more or less intelligent than a grammar freak.
I am traditionally suspicious of bold, aggressive statements like Wein's because I always think about exceptions to his rule. I completely agree with him that the standard written language is a symbol of capital and should be mastered in order to get you past certain gates in life. I am uncomfortable with agreeing him with because I have had parents who were qualified for jobs who were denied because of their written language skills. I also disagree with this statement: "Grammar signifies more than just a person's ability to remember high school English. 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." At least I am glad he didn't try to hide his privilege or power here. This statement lacks a lot of reflective thought.
Overall, I understand his point about emphasizing its importance but I also think it depends on the objective. For a writing company, yes that is critical and mandatory but some companies should look at verbal literacy or visual literacy instead of traditional norms of power.
Regarding my reaction to Wien's article, I would first acknowledge that his hiring practices are his own prerogative. As CEO of two writing-centered companies, it seems to follow, according to hegemonic norms, that "correct" grammar would be essential to his companies' success. And I don't disagree that adherence to grammar rules is an essential component in mastering Standard English- which, in the United States, is the language of power.
What concerns me most about this article is its popularity and purported credibility. Regardless of the content of his article, because the author is a successful white male CEO writing on behalf of Harvard Business School, readers are inclined to automatically assume a high level of expertise and authority. That this "expert" has chosen to extend his personal views on what constitutes a good employee into wide-sweeping, unfounded prejudices about ability and superior forms of communication is highly problematic. The article is essentially a coded narrative correlating culture, or level of access to a particular type of cultural capital- standard English grammar-, with a person's intrinsic level of intelligence and work ethic. This underlying message of this article- that the particular ways of knowing of this successful white man are those of an intelligent person, and are the only ones that matter- is conveniently cloaked by the general rendering of English grammar as static and objective.
My feelings towards this post are strongly ambivalent. While I do see the importance of grammar in the professional world and within day to day interactions through written communication, I do believe that Wiens's,(I even had to second guess the use of the apostrophe here. My rationalization was the last name ends in a "s", but it's still one person. Thus, the 's...correct?, assumptions towards the attainment of proper grammar and mechanics are a bit out of touch with the reality of schooling. For instance, I shake my head at the ignorance within Facebook posts on a daily basis. However, I am not only amazed by the ideas but the poor use of 'proper'grammar and mechanics as well. Facebook friends use too and to interchangeably; sadly, there's little evidence that anyone learned how to use an apostrophe correctly. These are just a few grammatical errors I encounter every other hour. Still, I can't help but cringe at the assertion,"If it takes someone more than 20 years to notice how to properly use 'it's,' then that's not a learning curve I'm comfortable with. So, even in this hyper-competitive market, I will pass on a great programmer who cannot write." My emotions lurched at this statement because it is based on the assumption that each applicant received appropriate and explicit instruction on grammar. I know this is not the case, even with the most privileged of students. In college, engineering students received A's on papers that were riddled with grammatical errors and poor sentence construction. Few knew what I considered to be the most basic parts of English grammar; yet, here they were, in college, graduating with a 3.0 or above. Furthermore, as we all know, schools typically rely on grammatical rules that are not thoroughly explained to students. Instead, we just memorize them, and therefore struggle with truly understanding when and how to use them. Consequently, people do not truly learn how to use proper written grammar for twenty years, and if they do, it's more than likely poorly explained rules that have little true understanding. As a result, individuals will make a mistake here are there. A tired set of eyes or a poor background on grammar could be the culprits. We have to begin to see people holistically---positives and negatives. Within occupations, grammatical weakness can be supported relatively easily, but poor thinking takes much longer. I'll take my risks with the grammar from time to time, with the mind---no thanks.
Grammar is used as a mechanism to measure discipline, skill level, responsibility, focus, and efficiency for Weins and I do not believe he is wrong for this. Many places of employment have other forms of assessment, like personality test, logic problems, etc. to get a sense for how a potential employee operates. However, what Wiens fails to realize is that function and/or operation is not always an accurate representation of how one is hardwired. His inability to see them as separate categorizes is evident from his statement. "If it takes someone more than 20 years to notice how to properly use "it's," then that's not a learning curve I'm comfortable with." Though an individual may use "it's" and "its" presumably in the wrong context, it does not solidify that this individual does not know the difference, all it solidifies is that they have chosen to present the letters i-t-s with or without an apostrophe. I would hope that eventually Mr.Weins learns that grammar is something that a person can fully understand how to correctly use while still choosing to present it differently based on personal preference. A lot of the time the environment will determine how, if, and when grammar rules are followed or broken.
What I am most uncomfortable with is knowing that it can take someone more than 20 years to notice that not using "it's," properly does not automatically mean a person in incapable of using "it's;" properly. Frankly, it's simply just not a learning curve I'm comfortable with.
Since most individuals are judged on their literacy skills whether in a interview or not I would say that this article did not shock me when I read it. I can also say that since the discussion we had in class and after re-reading the article I would have to agree that individuals are judged on their literacy skills but what I struggled with was his statement about allowing individuals who have disabilities to be excused. I agree, and understand by law, that you can't refuse to higher an individual based on their disabilities but what about individuals who may have never been tested or slipped through the cracks and may have a disability. Do they not deserve the same rights? It also was interested in the science behind being making fewer mistakes in grammar performance and non-grammar related performance. DId he conduct research or was it just a lay hypothesis disguised as a theorized statement.
I completely understand the author's argument given his position as the head of two very grammar-obsessed companies.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did not agree with his statement that, "Applicants who don't think writing is important are likely to think lots of other (important) things also aren't important."While grammar is key, it is neither the embodiment of writing nor a reliable indicator of an applicant's work ethic or values.
I entirely agree. If the author is going to espouse himself to conservation of linguistic rules as a metaphor for discipline, fine, but couldn't he universalize his argument a little bit less? I mean if we want to take things a step even further, we could say that the innovation that happens when language takes on new, localized forms is pretty akin to the rapid social and technological change that's lately fueled our "knowledge economy"? From a purists' standpoint, I totally love grammar. Structure, and the science of something just a little beyond our understanding are beautiful. However, the same deep structure can be found in rural dialects of English, Ebonics, and sometimes even the logic of just speaking "poorly". I know some jobs require clear, lucid communication for specific audiences and applications- I would hire folks with impeccable language skills for such positions. On the other hand, many, equally valuable jobs will not require grammatical rigor, a point in case being the engineers I have met with pretty "lazy" speaking styles. Lastly, if we follow Mr. Wiens' line of reasoning to the end, wouldn't the man or woman stocking shelves who speaks just a little differently from Standard English come up with a different and more efficient way of performing the job? This is an extreme illustration of Wiens' fallacy, but shows how monolithic the piece's thinking is. In terms of biology: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny- form follows function, and if grammar's forms become relative, then its function within a workplace should also follow suit.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, there are two misconceptions at stake here in the op-ed author's analysis.
ReplyDeleteThe first is that the author appears to believe that Standard American English (SAE) is the ideal medium of communication in all contexts and for all possible consumers in the business world. This very well may be true in the highly skilled professional context through which he works, but as Daniel points out, this context is not universal. For instance, if I were a funeral director in a neighborhood of Appalachian English (AE) speakers, I would want my employees to be conversant and comfortable with the conventions of Appalachian English. (Sorry for the funeral director example; I'm currently going through a marathon of the TV show "Six Feet Under"). If I operated a community bank in a neighborhood with consumers who are mainly comfortable in Haitian Creole, I would want my employees, managers, etc, to be conversant in that language. The author appears to not even consider that different audiences speaking different languages and dialects might have different business needs than his own.
Second, the author says that ignoring the conventions of SAE grammar makes one look "stupid". I won't argue with his perception: it is true that many people perceive ignoring those conventions means you are unintelligent. But as McWhorter pointed out in this week's readings, dialects are not merely a degradation or bastardization of the American "standard" - they are ways of speaking that are just as complex, valid, and often even more nuanced than the "standard". Eschewing the conventions of SAE is not equal to stupidity: far from it. He has every right to make it a requirement for his employ, but he does not have the facts to back up his half-baked just-so stories about the intellect and language breadth and depth of those whose resumes he tosses to the bottom of the bin.
This is from Emily K., who is having some technical difficulty posting:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Wiens's stance; excellent grammar and writing skills should be considered a prerequisite for working in any field that requires production of text.
He writes that "Good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet... And, for better or worse, people judge you if you can't tell the difference between their, there, and they're." I agree completely; I would also add that, conversely, bad grammar is a liabililty. In the absence of face-to-face interaction, people (and companies, organizations, etc.) present themselves through written media, and texts that contain grammar (or punctuation, spelling, etc.) mistakes make the entities they represent seem unprofessional (at best.)
At first glance, this article felt too harsh. In his first three paragraphs Wiens goes on a rant on how he has “zero tolerance” for poor grammar. He uses the quote of Tesser, which says that people who mix up their itses should be “struck by lightening”. However, Wiens moves to the reasoning behind his policy. He is the CEO of two companies that deal with writing. If I were Wiens, I would not hire a writer who could not distinguish between “to” and “too” either. However, I do not think that this means that we should write perfectly at all times. Rather, I think Wiens’ point is that careless writing should not be tolerated. It is not about writing flawlessly, but constantly working on your writing so that there are not careless mistakes. I believe that language can be powerful if it is used properly. I think of Martin Luther King Jr.’s writings. I wonder how much time he spent on his sermons, speeches, articles and essays. They are moving and also wonderfully written. Would they be as powerful if they were poorly written?
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I support his strict strategies of hiring people at his companies, is because he has two of the most leading companies that relates to writing. Those particular strategies work for the type of living that he makes. But in other jobs, the "standard English" is not 100% a way of living or a way to labeled someone as not sufficient in a work site. I did not approve with this quote with so many different types of jobs that are in this country alone: "They are a projection of your physical absence...people judge you if you can't tell the difference between their, there, and they're." There are jobs that with minimal writing skills you can have a decent living.
ReplyDeleteI have two reactions to this editorial. First, I must say that as an English teacher and grammarphile, I have to agree with Weins' point. Especially in such a formal job interview setting, and for such a composition-heavy job, "proper"/standardized academic English is an important factor in hiring. Nevertheless, I have a few criticisms of his argument:
ReplyDelete- As Weins himself proves with his hanging preposition ("with"), English grammar is fluid and subject to change based on common usage.
- I am surprised that he doesn't accept that his programmers may be native code speakers and only proficient in standardized English. They may be functionally bilingual, but prefer (and excel in) code.
-"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." Oh really? How scientific.
The purpose of language is to have a common social and cultural basis for understanding and expression. While atrocious grammar certainly eschews abilities to understand and causes others to mis-express themselves, having commas, when, you, don't, need, them, often, does, not, hinder, understanding. To say that one needs perfect grammar is simply an appeasement to classist interests. Underlying the author's argument is a problematic social policy - grammar as an indicator of and proxy for class, education, and social background.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Wein's stance, for the most part. Like many others have already mentioned, his viewpoint is understandable when considering his line of work. There is an importance to grammar rules, conventions, that when followed, allows the reader greater access to the intent of the writer. I do have a question about his “extenuating circumstances” – it seems pretty narrow and only forgiving to those that have an “acceptable” excuse (an assumption I make based on the two he lists). Do people who aren’t strong in grammar because of racial, cultural, socio-historical factors make the cut? Where does this group of people fit in in his argument? His argument seems very black and white. Going along with that, if he’s saying that grammar and written communication are very important and are key factors in success, what does that mean for the students that we teach? What about Ebonics and changing dialects and etc.?
ReplyDeleteAs the CEO of two companies where using correct grammar is extremely important, Weins makes a valid argument for why he is such a stickler for grammar. However, his argument does not account for people who are not proficient in Standard English. He notes, "I have a "zero tolerance approach" to grammar mistakes that make people look stupid." Stupid is defined as "lacking intelligence or common sense." So do people who lack proficiency in Standard English lack intelligence and common sense as well?
ReplyDeleteWeins also notes that he requires applicants to take a grammar test and with extenuating circumstances such as dyslexia or English Language Learners aside, applicants need to know proper grammar. In this sentence, he defined whom he expects to write with proper grammar, therefore, for those who have dyslexia or are ELLs, do they qualify to work in his company? Isn’t this a form of discrimination against those with special needs?
weins also argues, “good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet. in blog posts, on facebook statuses, in emails, and on company websites, your words are all you have.” although i agree with this, i believe that typing like this on the internet allows me to practice skills in code switching. i do not think that using proper grammar is necessary in every situation. speaking and writing call for the use of code switching in different situations. typing like this on my fb statuses does not make me more or less intelligent than a grammar freak.
I am traditionally suspicious of bold, aggressive statements like Wein's because I always think about exceptions to his rule. I completely agree with him that the standard written language is a symbol of capital and should be mastered in order to get you past certain gates in life. I am uncomfortable with agreeing him with because I have had parents who were qualified for jobs who were denied because of their written language skills. I also disagree with this statement:
ReplyDelete"Grammar signifies more than just a person's ability to remember high school English. 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."
At least I am glad he didn't try to hide his privilege or power here. This statement lacks a lot of reflective thought.
Overall, I understand his point about emphasizing its importance but I also think it depends on the objective. For a writing company, yes that is critical and mandatory but some companies should look at verbal literacy or visual literacy instead of traditional norms of power.
Regarding my reaction to Wien's article, I would first acknowledge that his hiring practices are his own prerogative. As CEO of two writing-centered companies, it seems to follow, according to hegemonic norms, that "correct" grammar would be essential to his companies' success. And I don't disagree that adherence to grammar rules is an essential component in mastering Standard English- which, in the United States, is the language of power.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me most about this article is its popularity and purported credibility. Regardless of the content of his article, because the author is a successful white male CEO writing on behalf of Harvard Business School, readers are inclined to automatically assume a high level of expertise and authority. That this "expert" has chosen to extend his personal views on what constitutes a good employee into wide-sweeping, unfounded prejudices about ability and superior forms of communication is highly problematic. The article is essentially a coded narrative correlating culture, or level of access to a particular type of cultural capital- standard English grammar-, with a person's intrinsic level of intelligence and work ethic. This underlying message of this article- that the particular ways of knowing of this successful white man are those of an intelligent person, and are the only ones that matter- is conveniently cloaked by the general rendering of English grammar as static and objective.
My feelings towards this post are strongly ambivalent. While I do see the importance of grammar in the professional world and within day to day interactions through written communication, I do believe that Wiens's,(I even had to second guess the use of the apostrophe here. My rationalization was the last name ends in a "s", but it's still one person. Thus, the 's...correct?, assumptions towards the attainment of proper grammar and mechanics are a bit out of touch with the reality of schooling.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I shake my head at the ignorance within Facebook posts on a daily basis. However, I am not only amazed by the ideas but the poor use of 'proper'grammar and mechanics as well. Facebook friends use too and to interchangeably; sadly, there's little evidence that anyone learned how to use an apostrophe correctly. These are just a few grammatical errors I encounter every other hour.
Still, I can't help but cringe at the assertion,"If it takes someone more than 20 years to notice how to properly use 'it's,' then that's not a learning curve I'm comfortable with. So, even in this hyper-competitive market, I will pass on a great programmer who cannot write." My emotions lurched at this statement because it is based on the assumption that each applicant received appropriate and explicit instruction on grammar. I know this is not the case, even with the most privileged of students. In college, engineering students received A's on papers that were riddled with grammatical errors and poor sentence construction. Few knew what I considered to be the most basic parts of English grammar; yet, here they were, in college, graduating with a 3.0 or above. Furthermore, as we all know, schools typically rely on grammatical rules that are not thoroughly explained to students. Instead, we just memorize them, and therefore struggle with truly understanding when and how to use them. Consequently, people do not truly learn how to use proper written grammar for twenty years, and if they do, it's more than likely poorly explained rules that have little true understanding.
As a result, individuals will make a mistake here are there. A tired set of eyes or a poor background on grammar could be the culprits. We have to begin to see people holistically---positives and negatives. Within occupations, grammatical weakness can be supported relatively easily, but poor thinking takes much longer. I'll take my risks with the grammar from time to time, with the mind---no thanks.
And might I add... the computer is a tricky little thing. I looked this over twice...and I still see mistakes I thought I fixed.
DeleteI'm not tech-savvy enough to find the edit. Okay. See you all in class!
DeleteGrammar is used as a mechanism to measure discipline, skill level, responsibility, focus, and efficiency for Weins and I do not believe he is wrong for this. Many places of employment have other forms of assessment, like personality test, logic problems, etc. to get a sense for how a potential employee operates. However, what Wiens fails to realize is that function and/or operation is not always an accurate representation of how one is hardwired. His inability to see them as separate categorizes is evident from his statement. "If it takes someone more than 20 years to notice how to properly use "it's," then that's not a learning curve I'm comfortable with." Though an individual may use "it's" and "its" presumably in the wrong context, it does not solidify that this individual does not know the difference, all it solidifies is that they have chosen to present the letters i-t-s with or without an apostrophe. I would hope that eventually Mr.Weins learns that grammar is something that a person can fully understand how to correctly use while still choosing to present it differently based on personal preference. A lot of the time the environment will determine how, if, and when grammar rules are followed or broken.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am most uncomfortable with is knowing that it can take someone more than 20 years to notice that not using "it's," properly does not automatically mean a person in incapable of using "it's;" properly. Frankly, it's simply just not a learning curve I'm comfortable with.
This isn't about English but its the issue underlying my response and I think is connect to our class. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa7IfuXT_Bc
ReplyDeleteSince most individuals are judged on their literacy skills whether in a interview or not I would say that this article did not shock me when I read it. I can also say that since the discussion we had in class and after re-reading the article I would have to agree that individuals are judged on their literacy skills but what I struggled with was his statement about allowing individuals who have disabilities to be excused. I agree, and understand by law, that you can't refuse to higher an individual based on their disabilities but what about individuals who may have never been tested or slipped through the cracks and may have a disability. Do they not deserve the same rights? It also was interested in the science behind being making fewer mistakes in grammar performance and non-grammar related performance. DId he conduct research or was it just a lay hypothesis disguised as a theorized statement.
ReplyDelete