A favorite question here at OB is: who are the real experts? Most people think of grammar as an area where expertise is especially respected and organized; experts coordinate to decide the right answers and then tell the rest of us what to think. That is certainly the impression most English teachers give us. But in fact the "expert" grammar they most often teach was determined mainly by popularity among English teachers,
None of the reviews of Strunk & White have looked at the historical context. Did the book first propound the style guidelines it announces, or were they already current? What concepts of stylistic virtue were in the running when White published the book? Answers to these questions would be more interesting than the polemics of linguists searching for battlefields to enact their obsessional mock war between prescriptivists and descriptivists.
Others have said it, but I found this piece pretty fatuous, given that a) Pullum really does not provide clear examples of what S&W proposed that is actually incorrect (or their own supposed errors of grammar), and b) he agrees that there are no agreed-upon experts, and thus in the end no rules (although I realize that he is partly complaining about people using S&W as the authorities on what the rules are).
One of the things he seems worked up about is the whole "that-which" business, although that seems to have been invented by Fowler rather than S&W. As an editor, I have noticed that this seems to be one of those things distinguishing British English and American English, with the former not obeying this "rule" at all.
Which brings up that S&W are very American, with many Americans admiring "efficiency" in writing (Hanson?). So, S&W are a great hit with their advocacy of brevity and clarity, and certainly the latter is generally desirable. Among no-nonsense Americans, this would be Hemingway, along with Hammett. Of course, this says that Faulkner is a naughty, and, Proust? Well, he is not American anyway.
Needless to say there are times when not following the rules can lead to problems, with the title of that recent book, _Eats, Shoots, and Leaves_ (Panda in restaurant) being a prime example.
But this is not the question people want to ask. Instead they want to ask the question: how do I cover my ass? How do I ensure that what I write cannot be objected to? If someone doubts the way I phrased something, what authority can I hit them with?
Exactly.
One of the times I tried to take the Expository Writing course at Rutgers University, which is a graduation requirement for all students, the instructor declared that the class was not allowed to begin a sentence with "however" because it was grammatically incorrect. However, I disagreed that it was incorrect grammar, but a mere undergraduate student arguing with a professor over something that stupid isn't going to get very far. I never did pass that course, and eventually got special permission from the Dean of Engineering to take a technical writing course instead of the evil, evil expository writing course. (And, dammit, just because I can't think of a single thing to say about genetically modified potatoes doesn't mean I'm not capable of producing better prose than than ninety percent of the other students in the class!)
Bad grammar and bad spelling interfere with the smooth reading of the text; they unnecessarily make the reader work harder to understand what was written. In the event, careless grammar and spelling can be considered a sign of contempt for the reader, or serious incompetence in the writer (in which case why bother reading what he wrote).
As the old saying goes, "Hard thinking makes for easier reading."
The usage of and insistence upon proper grammar is largely a form of signaling anyway. In english, grammar is critically important to understanding the meaning of a sentence, yet it is rare that we misunderstand the meaning of those we would accuse of bad grammar. Because in fact 'bad' grammar is not really all that bad in and of itself, but we perceive it so disdainfully because it signals an unwillingness or inability to conform to, and or at least an ignorance of, certain arbitrary conventions of society.
I find it delightful that the two fairly vicious attacks on Strunk and White that I've seen on the Web recently have both been by the authors of dramatically less successful volumes. Sour grapes?
I agree that S&W are about good writing, not grammar (which is a much less interesting and useful subject).
Of course I had the best wording; I used the Elements of Style ;-)
My point was that if S&W didn't exist, and some other book of which Pullum approves filled the void, there would still be people (and software applications) that take the rules too seriously and cause the kind of harm Pullum is warning about. I don't think S&W should be tarred with that particular brush.
That I was able to take example sentences Pullum approved of and make them shorter and arguably not worse hints that maybe the Elements of Style is fundamentally sound and just needs a few corrections or an errata page.
I'm not a big Pullum fan, but I have on and off read one of the blog he contributes (LanguageLog), thus I'm pretty confident that Pullum leans towards descriptivism (like me, except I'm a more extreme descriptivist than he is). A lot of people have trouble grasping the concept of descriptivism, and so I wonder if that might be one reason why I seem to have such a different interpretation of this post than the other commenters.
Here are two passages written by commenter "David" whom I (perhaps falsely?) believe is using these passages as arguments against Pullum, but which are in fact in agreement with Pullum. (I don't mean to pick on you, David; it just so happened that you had the best wording of these sentiments):
And no matter how expertly the rules are written, someone is always going to be a stickler for them. You can't really blame Strunk and White for that.
When it comes to grammar and style I say learn the rules so you know how to break them. I'm willing to give other books a look but Strunk and White is a lot better than nothing and isn't harmful, unless you use it to settle a bet about passive voice.
While Pullum does believe that S&W are wrong about certain topics (e.g. what is or isn't a passive voice), I suspect that isn't his main gripe. His main gripe are other people who then point to S&W as "proof" for their precritivist viewpoints (e.g. when you really do use S&W to settle a bet about passive voice).
You can also listen to Geoff Pullum talk on this topic, because he was a guest of NPR's Talk of the Nation recently. I'll link to Language Log announcement of his appearance.
The posting contains a link to a site where you can listen to the audio. You can also comment on Language Log about Strunk & White or related issues, if you are so inclined. (Which is why I linked there.)
The Word thing was a goof. I hate that feature and always turn it off.
I should say that I like Elements of Style and there is no question my writing is better because of it. I think Pullum is not seeing the big picture. Just knowing that you should re-read your work with "omit needless words" in mind is very valuable, more valuable in fact than knowing exactly what passive voice is. And no matter how expertly the rules are written, someone is always going to be a stickler for them. You can't really blame Strunk and White for that. A long, long time ago a boss got on my case for not typing two spaces after a period. He didn't seem to care that it was WordPerfect and not a typewriter.
When it comes to grammar and style I say learn the rules so you know how to break them. I'm willing to give other books a look but Strunk and White is a lot better than nothing and isn't harmful, unless you use it to settle a bet about passive voice.
Another problem with the article: he picks on things like "Omit needless words," just based on that heading. He ignores the examples and explanations. He says this advice is a tautology, but it's not -- people break the rule all the time. It's really important.
[Although the authors discourage the use of the passive voice, they admit that it's sometimes useful.] Sadly, writing tutors tend to ignore this moderation, and simply red-circle everything that looks like a passive, just as Microsoft Word's grammar checker underlines every passive in wavy green to signal that you should try to get rid of it. That overinterpretation is part of the damage that Strunk and White have unintentionally done. But it is not what I am most concerned about here.
None of the reviews of Strunk & White have looked at the historical context. Did the book first propound the style guidelines it announces, or were they already current? What concepts of stylistic virtue were in the running when White published the book? Answers to these questions would be more interesting than the polemics of linguists searching for battlefields to enact their obsessional mock war between prescriptivists and descriptivists.
Others have said it, but I found this piece pretty fatuous, given that a) Pullum really does not provide clear examples of what S&W proposed that is actually incorrect (or their own supposed errors of grammar), and b) he agrees that there are no agreed-upon experts, and thus in the end no rules (although I realize that he is partly complaining about people using S&W as the authorities on what the rules are).
One of the things he seems worked up about is the whole "that-which" business, although that seems to have been invented by Fowler rather than S&W. As an editor, I have noticed that this seems to be one of those things distinguishing British English and American English, with the former not obeying this "rule" at all.
Which brings up that S&W are very American, with many Americans admiring "efficiency" in writing (Hanson?). So, S&W are a great hit with their advocacy of brevity and clarity, and certainly the latter is generally desirable. Among no-nonsense Americans, this would be Hemingway, along with Hammett. Of course, this says that Faulkner is a naughty, and, Proust? Well, he is not American anyway.
Needless to say there are times when not following the rules can lead to problems, with the title of that recent book, _Eats, Shoots, and Leaves_ (Panda in restaurant) being a prime example.
But this is not the question people want to ask. Instead they want to ask the question: how do I cover my ass? How do I ensure that what I write cannot be objected to? If someone doubts the way I phrased something, what authority can I hit them with?
Exactly.
One of the times I tried to take the Expository Writing course at Rutgers University, which is a graduation requirement for all students, the instructor declared that the class was not allowed to begin a sentence with "however" because it was grammatically incorrect. However, I disagreed that it was incorrect grammar, but a mere undergraduate student arguing with a professor over something that stupid isn't going to get very far. I never did pass that course, and eventually got special permission from the Dean of Engineering to take a technical writing course instead of the evil, evil expository writing course. (And, dammit, just because I can't think of a single thing to say about genetically modified potatoes doesn't mean I'm not capable of producing better prose than than ninety percent of the other students in the class!)
Bad grammar and bad spelling interfere with the smooth reading of the text; they unnecessarily make the reader work harder to understand what was written. In the event, careless grammar and spelling can be considered a sign of contempt for the reader, or serious incompetence in the writer (in which case why bother reading what he wrote).
As the old saying goes, "Hard thinking makes for easier reading."
The usage of and insistence upon proper grammar is largely a form of signaling anyway. In english, grammar is critically important to understanding the meaning of a sentence, yet it is rare that we misunderstand the meaning of those we would accuse of bad grammar. Because in fact 'bad' grammar is not really all that bad in and of itself, but we perceive it so disdainfully because it signals an unwillingness or inability to conform to, and or at least an ignorance of, certain arbitrary conventions of society.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.
I find it delightful that the two fairly vicious attacks on Strunk and White that I've seen on the Web recently have both been by the authors of dramatically less successful volumes. Sour grapes?
I agree that S&W are about good writing, not grammar (which is a much less interesting and useful subject).
urubu-you scare me.
Nebu,
Of course I had the best wording; I used the Elements of Style ;-)
My point was that if S&W didn't exist, and some other book of which Pullum approves filled the void, there would still be people (and software applications) that take the rules too seriously and cause the kind of harm Pullum is warning about. I don't think S&W should be tarred with that particular brush.
That I was able to take example sentences Pullum approved of and make them shorter and arguably not worse hints that maybe the Elements of Style is fundamentally sound and just needs a few corrections or an errata page.
I'm not a big Pullum fan, but I have on and off read one of the blog he contributes (LanguageLog), thus I'm pretty confident that Pullum leans towards descriptivism (like me, except I'm a more extreme descriptivist than he is). A lot of people have trouble grasping the concept of descriptivism, and so I wonder if that might be one reason why I seem to have such a different interpretation of this post than the other commenters.
Here are two passages written by commenter "David" whom I (perhaps falsely?) believe is using these passages as arguments against Pullum, but which are in fact in agreement with Pullum. (I don't mean to pick on you, David; it just so happened that you had the best wording of these sentiments):
And no matter how expertly the rules are written, someone is always going to be a stickler for them. You can't really blame Strunk and White for that.
When it comes to grammar and style I say learn the rules so you know how to break them. I'm willing to give other books a look but Strunk and White is a lot better than nothing and isn't harmful, unless you use it to settle a bet about passive voice.
While Pullum does believe that S&W are wrong about certain topics (e.g. what is or isn't a passive voice), I suspect that isn't his main gripe. His main gripe are other people who then point to S&W as "proof" for their precritivist viewpoints (e.g. when you really do use S&W to settle a bet about passive voice).
Ah, I expected the software to recognize the URL. Here is the same link in markup:
Language Log: Pullum on Talk of the Nation
You can also listen to Geoff Pullum talk on this topic, because he was a guest of NPR's Talk of the Nation recently. I'll link to Language Log announcement of his appearance.
http://languagelog.ldc.upen...
The posting contains a link to a site where you can listen to the audio. You can also comment on Language Log about Strunk & White or related issues, if you are so inclined. (Which is why I linked there.)
by with a strident tone.
(Of course, I meant "but with a strident tone")
@John Maxwell IV:
The Word thing was a goof. I hate that feature and always turn it off.
I should say that I like Elements of Style and there is no question my writing is better because of it. I think Pullum is not seeing the big picture. Just knowing that you should re-read your work with "omit needless words" in mind is very valuable, more valuable in fact than knowing exactly what passive voice is. And no matter how expertly the rules are written, someone is always going to be a stickler for them. You can't really blame Strunk and White for that. A long, long time ago a boss got on my case for not typing two spaces after a period. He didn't seem to care that it was WordPerfect and not a typewriter.
When it comes to grammar and style I say learn the rules so you know how to break them. I'm willing to give other books a look but Strunk and White is a lot better than nothing and isn't harmful, unless you use it to settle a bet about passive voice.
Another problem with the article: he picks on things like "Omit needless words," just based on that heading. He ignores the examples and explanations. He says this advice is a tautology, but it's not -- people break the rule all the time. It's really important.
@David:
Did you read this bit?
[Although the authors discourage the use of the passive voice, they admit that it's sometimes useful.] Sadly, writing tutors tend to ignore this moderation, and simply red-circle everything that looks like a passive, just as Microsoft Word's grammar checker underlines every passive in wavy green to signal that you should try to get rid of it. That overinterpretation is part of the damage that Strunk and White have unintentionally done. But it is not what I am most concerned about here.