Specifically, A White Bear, who responded to this supercilious column on the importance of grammar (it allows us to pass ourselves off as refined, of course) with a wonderful post. Notwithstanding her totally unwarranted and unfair criticism of From the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, A White Bear suggests that:
To me, “bad writing” is not that which appears low-class, as Kilpatrick suggests, but that which shows an inflexible dedication to habits limited by a poor grasp of how language works. Bad writing does not just “make mistakes,” although, sure, grammatical mistakes make sentences woefully ambiguous where they could be incisive. Bad writing is that which displays a narrow set of choices. It is formulaic because it only knows one formula. Mistakes like dangling modifiers (for which I should have been jailed in college) show that the writer could not imagine reorganizing the sentence in another way to make it clearer. Learning some basic grammatical and syntactical rules helps a writer to think more nimbly and creatively about sentences.
I like to tell my students that learning grammar is not about imprisoning their “natural talents” or “individual voices” or whatever, but about liberating them by giving them more options. When you have a language for talking about syntax and parts of speech, you can ask questions like, “What do I want to be the subject of this sentence?” and “Would restructuring this information into an adverbial clause be more interesting than tacking on adjectives?” Grammatical study destroys some of the romance of the unadulterable utterance, but it, perhaps ironically, provides a structure within which a writer can make conscious choices.
This struck me as so right the first time I read it that I almost jumped out of my recliner. But my recliner is comfy. And I’m getting too old to do much jumping. Regardless, A White Bear nails it: grammar is about choices. Which reminds me of a particular class during my first year of graduate school, when the great and good Volker Berghahn discussed, in painstaking detail, his note-taking methods. Upon finishing his explanation, Volker smiled and said, “I find my system liberating.” At the time I couldn’t get beyond the irony. But now, I think Berghahn meant what A White Bear means: familiarity with a complex but flexible system is not about circumscribing options but creating new ones. Anyway, read the post. It’s good.

10 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 3, 2008 at 10:51 am
Vance Maverick
Agreed, though I think she takes one rhetorical step too far.
“[B]ad writing” is … that which shows an inflexible dedication to habits limited by a poor grasp of how language works.
The various bodies of propositional knowledge about writing can certainly be useful pedagogical tools, and mnemonic aids, and rewarding in themselves. But the immediate goal here is a knowing-how, as manifested in the writing itself, both the practice and the product. Knowledge of linguistics or formal rhetoric is neither sufficient (try reading linguistics papers) nor strictly necessary.
In any case, the larger thrust here is one I’m sympathetic to. In studying harmony and counterpoint, it took me a long time to get through the long list of prohibitions (e.g. on parallel fifths) and see that the actual practice of the composers of the 17th-19th centuries is better understood as a set of positive habits. What Mozart avoided is a good deal less interesting than what he did (though the prohibitions are real, and the positive habits reflect to some extent the way the tradition accommodated the prohibitions).
April 3, 2008 at 10:58 am
Matt Weiner
Pullum alludes to this, but this from Kilpatrick got right up my nose:
The distinction between “Kathryn has” and “Kathryn had” is a perfect, or at least a past perfect example.
The present perfect would be “Kathryn has had better ideas than James Kilpatrick, and she’s only fourteen.” The past perfect would be “Kathryn had had better ideas than James Kilpatrick before she was twelve.” “Kathryn had” is simple past rather than anything perfect, unless you add a past participle. If you’re going to be a grammar snob, try and learn what you’re talking about!
(I pass over in paralipsis Kilpatrick’s bizarre claim that “English is the best language ever devised for communicating thought.”)
–But I’m interested by this sentence from AWB, “Hypocritically, the two main characters go on and on with stupid arguments about ‘bad grammar,’ one out of ten of which is even remotely a valid argument about language.” Which uses the negative polarity item “even” in what’s generally taken not to be an NPI-licensing environment. I’m fascinated by the apparent exceptions to the NPI rules, although my linguist colleague at Tech says that words like “even” are actually weak NPIs, as opposed to strong NPIs like (apparently) “in weeks.” Bet Kilpatrick doesn’t even know what an NPI is.
April 3, 2008 at 11:01 am
Vance Maverick
I bobbled on that one too, and mentally went back to insert “only” before “one out of ten”.
April 3, 2008 at 11:22 am
Matt Weiner
Yeah, maybe that makes it read more smoothly. BUT you actually do encounter NPIs in contexts like that, that aren’t strictly negative environments. Like this (with “at all” instead of “even,” and if you read down you get some examples that aren’t in philosopeak).
here’s a nice explanation of what NPIs are, BTW — expressions like “any” and “at all” and “even.” A first stab at when they’re OK to use is that they’re OK in “downward entailing” environments, which need not be negative — basically, if F is a downward-entailing environment, and x entails y, then Fy will entail Fx. So negation is a downward entailing environment:
“I didn’t run” entails “I didn’t run fast” because “run fast” entails “run”
But so is being in the antecedent of a conditional:
“If I ran, I was tired” entails “If I ran fast, I was tired”
And NPIs are licensed in both “I didn’t run at all” and “If I ran fast at all, I was tired” are both OK.
And note that “Only one of ten” is DE — “Only one of ten ran” entails “only one of ten ran fast.” “One of ten” isn’t — “one of ten ran” doesn’t entail “one of ten” ran fast. But there’s still something negative about “one of ten” (it sort of means something like “not many”), and that’s why it doesn’t sound as bad to have the NPI “even” in there even if you don’t have “only.” At least that’s my feeling — this is all controversial and I’m not an expert. But there are definitely NPIs that show up in environments that aren’t DE, but may be kind of negative; and it’s hard to explain why.
Thus endeth the overly long linguistics lesson.
April 3, 2008 at 11:27 am
Vance Maverick
I should clarify that I didn’t regard that one as an error on AWB’s part — she was in effect deferring your realization that “one of ten” expressed an insufficiency.
April 3, 2008 at 11:58 am
eric
I find my system liberating
Wordsworth wrote a sonnet about that. (Get it? A sonnet? Get it? Hah!)
April 5, 2008 at 7:51 am
The Constructivist
Anyone else think AWB is the best academic blogger out there?
April 6, 2008 at 5:13 pm
A White Bear
No, you’re alone on that one, Constructivist.
(I mean, thanks!)
April 6, 2008 at 5:31 pm
ari
Oh, I didn’t see Constructivist’s comment until now. Sorry about that. And yes, AWB’s blog is aces. And AWB is modest.
April 9, 2008 at 10:26 am
andrew
Somehow, “of which ten, only one even…” doesn’t sound too bad to me. But I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a construction of that type before.