Number 112
I had a wonderful professor of rhetoric, Dr. Winston Weathers, who taught us about "levels of diction." That is, various levels of formality in speech and writing are called for in different situations. In her February 19, 2005 "Miss Manners" column, "Rewriting the Rules," Judith Martin wrote about "educators and employers who bemoan the demise of formal writing."
Their complaint is no longer simply that students and employees fail to recognize a distinction between the way they talk and the language they should use in writing academic papers or business letters and reports. Now the writing habits associated with e-mail have begun to show up in what is supposed to pass for serious writing.
Rules are violated, either because nobody knows what they are or because nobody cares. Spontaneity and cuteness are thought to trump organization and correctness. Most significantly, the idea that there should be different styles for different purposes is considered bizarre and not quite honest. . . .
By now, there are many in positions of authority who grew up under the rule of relentless informality. Reinforced by a social ethos of "being themselves" ~ as if we had a choice of who to be ~ they are of a generation that is largely unaware that it is possible to handle more than one style without being fraudulent or satirical. Those who request anything formal, notably for weddings, are likely to encounter some indignant resistance.
But educated people know about different styles of using spoken and written language. They keep trying to make the point that a highly informal style that is fine for e-mail is offensive when used for a business letter or, for that matter, that words that are common in the locker room should not be repeated in the postgame television interview.
Interesting point about the "insincerity" of varying one's style. People do tend to identify themselves with their most informal selves, even their ruder selves. Considering that our moods, ideas, and opinions change over the years ~ sometimes from day to day or minute to minute ~ it doesn't make sense to talk about "keeping it real" as an excuse for laziness or hostility. It's hard to apply the metaphor of clothing to language ~ you'd dress up for a wedding or a funeral, wouldn't you? ~ when people wear bright flowery dresses to funerals and black T-shirts to weddings.
People know the informal self isn't always more "real," which is why they buy greeting cards. It would be more "real" and "sincere" to write a letter, to send one's own good wishes for birthdays and sympathy for deaths, in one's own words. The greeting card serves the function that the professional letter writer used to for the illiterate. That's OK. I don't want to try to be original for dozens of occasions every year either, and I like the pretty pictures on the cards.
Someone left a homemade wedding program in the church pew. I like found objects and this one is sweet, but ungrammatical. Since I don't know the couple, I can ignore the sweetness and concentrate on the grammar. Besides listing the wedding party, music program, etc., Monica and Mike wrote brief tributes to their parents and friends, but their "personalized" program is no tribute to their English teachers. They reached marriageable age without remembering the subject-verb agreement rule, for one thing, and violated that rule no less than four times in two short paragraphs ~ and twice in one sentence:
"Your love and caring goes beyond any we have ever seen."
"Who we have become, what we believe, and our ability to look towards a wonderful future together has all come from you."
"The friendship, laughter, shoulders to cry on, and hands to hold that each of you have provided has enriched our lives."
There were a couple of other little errors, but I will just mention two other non-grammatical issues:
"Throughout your lives you have given us all you could, and then, amazingly, more."
How did their parents do that? Did they give the kids all their money and then go into debt? Did they drain themselves spiritually until nothing was left but psychic black holes for their parasitical children to mine?
Finally, Monica and Mike thanked everyone "for sharing in this very special day." I've become an unreasonable curmudgeon about the word "special". It always reminds me of Dana Carvey's church lady character from Saturday Night Live who quashed everyone with "Isn't that special?" Let's try to think of more interesting and specific ~ more special ~ adjectives. After all, if everything is special, nothing is. This is one reason why writers are advised that adjectives can weaken your writing. It would have been better to thank everyone for "coming to our wedding." I wouldn't even say "sharing" our wedding day. Only two people are being wed.
Monica and Mike's parents, having given all and more, no doubt shelled out a small fortune for this wedding. For a few dollars more, they could have hired an English major cheap to copyedit the program. You can find them everywhere, flipping burgers and washing cars. Grammar done dirt cheap.
Maybe I should send M&M's wedding program to Found Magazine (thanks to Jude and Kate for the Found book). Found showcases all sorts of found objects, mostly notes and photos.
Harvard, like most other schools, has succumbed to grade inflation, though the new president, Larry Summers, is said to be reversing the trend. Do teachers and professors justify grade inflation by believing that (a) they are better teachers than all past teachers, or that (b) students are smarter and more knowledgeable than ever before? In either case, shouldn't the grading standards rise in the same way that athletes constantly strive to break records?
Remember the bell curve? This required that a certain number of students had to receive a prescribed percentage of grades. This could be unfair if rigidly applied. However, consider the word "average". It's reasonable to have a grade scale that indicates "average" work, and that grade has to be in the middle, as is average work: C. This used to be called the "gentleman's C", meaning that a person of no particular scholarly aptitude, who went to college more or less to maintain his social status and possibly qualify for a profession, could be expected to do the work adequately, but not brilliantly. It was respectable.
When more than half of Harvard students receive A's, does this mean that all Harvard students are above average, like the children of Lake Wobegon? If so, shouldn't they be graded on a higher scale than students at Centerville Tech Associate Degree Program for Invisible Weavers? Average means what most people do, so most students in any given school should be getting C's. They are average within their school. It's logical. It's mathematical. It's fair.
I don't know how Summers is faring with grade inflation, but perhaps you read that he got in trouble for mentioning research that says men and women are different, explaining why more men are in the math and science professions, despite many individual exceptions to ~ the averages. Nancy Hopkins, a biology professor at MIT, was so upset that she fled the room where Summers was speaking. She said later she "couldn't breathe" and almost got sick. What a girly reaction. MIT ~ doctorate ~ scientist ~ she should have stayed to fight it out, or at least ask some questions. Wimp. Sissy.
______________________________________________
I have a contribution in a new anthology about the
"center of life", Changing
Course: Women's Inspiring Stories of Menopause, Midlife, and Moving Forward,
edited by Yitta Halberstam.
Copyright Rhonda
Keith 2005. Parvum Opus or part of it may be reproduced only with
permission, but it is permissible to forward the entire newsletter as long as
the copyright remains.
Parvum Opus is a publication of KeithOps / Opus Publishing Services. Back
issues may be found at http://www.keithops.us/.
You may comment in the Guestbook, linked below the back issue links. Also, feel
free to e-mail me with comments or queries.
If you don't want
to receive Parvum Opus, please reply with "unsubscribe,"
"quit," "enough," or something like that in the subject
line, and I'll take you off the mailing list.
Go to Babelfish to translate this page to Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, or Spanish!