Colloquium on English - Research Institute for Waldorf Education

94
7. careless: the first “as” should be “so”
8. redundant: cut “at”
9. not proper informal writing: “auto” should be “automobile”
10. slang: “awfully”
Now, if you focus with honesty on your response when I asked you to “correct” the sentences, when
I put you in the same situation that we put our students in regularly, it is clear that even among us, a group
of English teachers, there was an air of general anxiety in the room.
There is anxiety about grammar, too, in our students, because we have focused on error-based
revision and called it grammar. We know, in Waldorf education especially, that anxiety inhibits learning.
How can we move our way of approach from the anxiety of “mistake detection” to the excitement of open
inquiry about our language, how it serves us, and its changing nature?
Let us now consider these selected quotes:
1. “A long overdue revolution is at present taking place in the study of English grammar – a revolution
as sweeping in its consequences as the Darwinian revolution in biology…. To anyone at all interested in
language, it is challenging; to those concerned with the teaching of English (including parents), it presents
the necessity of radically revising both the substance and the methods of their teaching….
Two vital questions are raised by this revolution in grammar. The first is ‘What is the value of this
new system?” In the minds of many who ask it, the implication of this question is, ‘We have been getting
along all these years with traditional grammar, so it can’t be very bad. Why should we go through the
painful process of unlearning and relearning grammar just because linguistic scientists have concocted
some new theories?’
The first answer to this question is the bravest and most honest. It is that the superseding of vague
and sloppy thinking by clear and precise thinking is an exciting experience in and for itself.” Francis, W.
Nelson. “Revolution in Grammar,” Exposition and the English Language. Ed. James Sanderson and Walter
Gordon. New York: Appleton/Century/Crofts, 1963
2. “… nearly all grammar books list as undesirable English the use of the split infinitive, the dangling
participle or gerund, the possessive case of the noun with inanimate objects, the objective case of the noun
with the gerund, the use of whose as a neuter relative pronoun, and many others; yet all of these uses may
be found in the authors who form the very backbone of English literature and who are reputable” and the
“best writers” in every sense of the word. If the standard-makers defy the standards, to whom shall we turn
for authority? …
The way out of this perplexity is to shift the search for standards away from “authorities” and
traditional rules to the language itself as it is spoken and written today. Just as the chemist draws his
deductions from the results of laboratory experiments, the biologist from his observations of forms of life,
and the astronomer from his telescope, so must students of language draw their deductions from an observation
of the facts of language. In establishing the laws of language, our personal desires, preferences, and
prejudices must give way to the scientific determination and interpretation of the facts of language. What
language we use ourselves may take any form we desire, but the making of rules and the teaching of rules
must rest upon objective facts.” Pooley, Robert C. “ The Definition and Determination of ‘Correct’ English,”
Exposition and the English Language. Ed. James Sanderson and Walter Gordon. New York: Appleton/
Century/Crofts, 1963