Interestingly enough, I enjoyed Britton's article more than Hartwell's long-winded article concerning grammar. I suppose I like to remain neutral in the face of academic debate, but at the same time some academics might say that I'm not an academic at all unless I take a firm stand on issues such as those presented in our readings. Either way, I'll continue to consider these debates with an open mind.
I've always been interested in grammar, spelling, and how the cultural collisions of time's past formed our extraordinary language. As such, I don't understand why grammar is not a very "interesting area of inquiry" according to Hartwell (228). Why did he write this article in the first place if it's not an interesting topic? His research certainly moved me to think about the issues behind the teaching of grammar, and it certainly didn't encourage me to "move on"(228). He makes many valid points throughout his discussion, but his message seems to be contradictory in nature. He fails to present a refined argument based on solid (up-to-date) facts. For example, he presents us with a study (from1976) about high school students in New Zealand and attempts to support his arguments based on its outcomes. Finally, his use of Grammar 1, Grammar 2, etc., is redundant and confusing at the least.
Hartwell's article is very useful, but his argument is not very convincing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment