This is just silly. I wholly disagree with the linked article. And I don't think it's talking about college-aged learners.
First comes the grammar stage where memorization is stressed.
Studying grammar explicitly isn't necessary in Elementary school. If everyone around you speaks English, and everything you read is in English, you cannot help but to absorb grammar. Your brain will do the work for you without you needing to focus extra hard on it. And, other people will help you correct "mistakes" where your grammar doesn't mesh with theirs.
I missed it, what was the second stage?
“Classrooms too often skip the first two steps and progress directly to the third, which is why so many elementary texts insist on asking six-year-olds how they feel about what they’re learning, long before they properly had a chance to learn it.”
Ugh, the purpose of asking the question is to encourage internalizing the information as it's being read so they'll be able to answer such questions after reading something. This apparent skipping to the third stage is a practice in learning by exercising the very skill that needs to be honed.
"Has it ever struck you as odd, or unfortunate, that today, when the proportion of literacy is higher than it has ever been, people should have become susceptible to the influence of advertisement and mass propaganda to an extent hitherto unheard of and unimagined?"
Everyone's literacy level has increased and advertisers have to step up their game, so of course people are susceptible to advertisements because both are improving. People make the advertisements. If they were entirely ineffective that would be even more indicative of failure. Also, observer bias. We have an unprecedented ability to collect such statistics now, it's entirely unfair to try to compare this perceived increased when the previous baseline didn't exist.
I would understand if they wanted to argue against a prescriptivist view because language is changing over time and it's a losing battle to absolutely affirm it must adhere to specific rules for all time, but it will adhere to rules, no matter how tentative, in order to convey information effectively in the moment where that information is conveyed.
"Ur racist, u whit pig. Uv held my peopl down for centurys, and U need to die."
While your sample sentence strikes many nerves, I have to admit that it's a subjective view that has me rejecting it first because it's not the grammar I am most comfortable with. But if it were, then my only objection to it would be that it only appeals on an emotional level and not a logical one. It doesn't succinctly argue a point and the conclusion it draws is so bombastic that it dismisses itself out of principle.
I would say here-in lies the bigger problem. We consume media and we learn grammar and reasoning skills there, too. And sometimes we forget that making a big dramatic splash, although satisfying, doesn't help to solve a problem. Instead, we need to remain calm and reason about things so we can arrive a solution that benefits all.
T quote:
I disagree with you. I have spent countless hours watching Antifa members and women from the Feminism movement, plus EU Members in parliament and that is exactly how they speak and it does not collapse - for them, since their listeners do not think with anything but emotions.
I live in S.A. Students in CapeTown university demanded that science be decolonised; that we get rid of those parts of it created by whites, and add back in African science - which is, magic, witchcraft etc.
Just because changes do not make sense, it does not mean they are not happening - almost purely based on emotional arguments, since logic does not serve them.
We learn how to speak our language from hearing others speak it? How nice for you, if you come from the right environment. At least, according to the older systems, children from poor areas could improve if they wanted to. Not if the systems of this college are widely adopted.
I must say that you write very well and break your thoughts down into little pockets that follow each other in a natural sounding manner. It is wonderful that you managed to pick that up from lstening to others in your neighbourhood speak so eloquently.
@everittdmickey - try not to think of it as interrupting your thinking process, but as an opportunity to shift through what you've read and get rid of whatever does not agree with your philosophy...it seems this is the intelligent way to evolve.
I would argue that's not the language being racist or sexist, but the way these individuals choose to use the language that is racist and or sexist. They will use emotionally charged terms and equivocation to sway an audience, but I can't think of an example where the language itself is racist. If you could provide me with a link or other example, I would appreciate it.
I would also argue that this is the bigger problem. It also seems to be common across many cultures.
Wow, get rid of? As in reject? Not just supplement with traditional views? That sounds terrible.
Not just hearing, but interacting. This is how natives of a language learn it, through using it to interact with others that speak it. Then once a basic fluency of the language is obtained this way we can choose to further develop it through formal means like school, or informal means, such as reading more content in that language. Obviously we augment this with school, but I'm getting distracted. My real point is probably more concisely put: language evolves with use and we absorb these new uses of language through exposure to them.
They could improve, that's a bit loaded as the environment can certainly reinforce the very conflicts that prevent them from improving even given an opportunity.
Not just listening, but interacting. I really meant that it's through interacting with others that we learn the bulk of our language. In this case it's through numerous interactions where people tell me that I sound like a pretentious dick, so I go back and spend a lot of time revising what I write, but then I have to balance that with using precise language that seems to me to convey what I meant to convey and not something else. The result is a hodge-podge of what can sound like esoteric BS, but my goal really was to use the words that describe what I meant to describe.
I'm not contradicting all you say, as a matter of fact, I don't even know what I am contradicting. A lot of what I believe (as I see from you also) is how language affects me.
I grew up in Africa; I hated school and would deliberately sit outside my class and read a book. I'd get taken to the head master for a caning (six of the best as they said in those days) but I did not care.
My father grew up in a village in Cyprus and tried to teach himself English, so as to get a better job. Moving to Africa, meant he was surrounded by people speaking English. He loved literature (at a time when non-British were not welcome in their clubs, they asked my father to give a speech about British Literature). He wrote mostly poetry and had them translated, by publishers, into 7 languages. I do not have any of them.
I think I barely noticed his love and accomplishments, for I discovered that language has rhythms - depending on the effect I want to achieve. Words can flow so that they sound like songs.
I've spent the last 18 years writing almost full time, with no time for going out or watching movies. The characters I created took over and Robert, the main character, has a deep love for the English language.
I've taken what we were discusisng to a more personal level, but ultimately, that is how I react to life.
I think an important point about myself is that I am not a snob about language. For instance, I see many posts by asians and africans and I enjoy reading them because they mash up the language something awful, but now and then, they distort the language in a way that it turns into a splendid little gem.
Those are beautiful moments