Today in class, I said that a student didn't necessarily have to know the difference between words like they're, there, and their because of how advanced modern grammar checkers are. I think that students should know the difference between these (and other) homophones, but I still wanted to check and see just how good grammar checkers are getting. Microsoft Word 2007 pointed out grammatical errors in the following sentences:
Their here for the party.
The police gave them back they’re cars after the night was over.
There not interested in learning proper English.
There are two many people here.
I asked her and she said it was to soon.
Let’s go out too the movies.
I looked around but I couldn’t figure out who’s coat this is.
Whose going to do their homework?
This raises a question: are students going to be motivated to follow the rules when a computer program can just point out the problem and fix it for them? It's a little scary that we now have programs that can recognize these errors contextually.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes, I think we should recognize the difference between words like “their,” “they’re,” and “there.” After all, we recognize the difference in our mind between “their” and “there” when we use them in conversation, so I think reflecting this distinction in writing is appropriate. We all make typos and mistakes, but I think we recognize the difference between the homophones the more we engage in reading and writing. We don’t often confuse “no” with “know,” for example. But maybe that’s an easy one!
I’m running an older version of Microsoft Word, and it only noted errors in four of the eight sentences you mentioned. So it does prove your point—grammar and spell checkers are becoming more sophisticated.
I agree with the two of you. I thnk it is really important that students know the difference between these and other homophones. I think, Bob, you made the most important statement in class today that when things like this impede meaning there is a problem. These distinctions certainly impede meaning.
Grammer checks do create a bit of laziness on the student's part, especially if a grammer check is run, and a student still picks the wrong choice. I think becca had a good point that "we make these distinctions in our head" which does reflect back on the meaning of things. If meaning is so important in student papers, then these distinctions are important. I don't think that grading a paper for grammer is necessary, marking up errors and taking points away for them, but I do think that pointing things out like this are important to students. After all, aren't we educating future professionals that in some fashion will have to write something in that venue. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if they mixed up common things like this. I wouldn't wnat that for my future students.
Laurin,
I agree that some errors impede meaning. I’ve also been wondering about the difference between errors that compromise intent and errors that hinder readability. I mean, I can read a run-on sentence, misspelling, misplaced modifier, or fragment and know what it means, but it might require an extra read-over or more scrutiny—like an extra level of interpretation, however minor. To me, the homophone issue doesn’t exactly fall under the impeding meaning category: the words do reflect different concepts, but, typically, we automatically know the writer’s intent due to the sound of the word and the context. Although, I guess errors like this could distract readers and thus compromise the writer’s intent. So maybe you have something there!
I still don’t like “their” for “there,” of course. However, I think these problems are easy to fix once the writer is informed and aware. Writers already internally know the difference between “their” and “there,” they just have to recognize which spelling coordinates with the concept. And maybe slowing down and proofreading would help too. ;)
Like you, I wouldn’t take points off for something like that in a composition paper, but I would certainly point it out.
You know, I enjoyed the Williamson article and the class today, but this entire discussion is giving me some grammar guilt! I suddenly feel guilty for all those error “hates” I have. Why is that?!
I think it's important for students (and people in general) to know the distinctions between these homophones because if they do, they'll have a larger vocabulary; and people with larger vocabularies can express themselves better, which can certainly help with writing. In this case, I don't feel guilty about this pet peeve of mine, nor do I feel guilty about the misused apostrophe issue. It takes a second of thought to realize where an apostrophe should be used -- but linguistics has taught me that, for the most part, people ALWAYS do what requires the least effort when it comes to communication and writing.
With this frame of mind, I am implying that students should be as invested in English as I am, so I'm operating from a flawed perspective here. I don't think it's healthy to expect a class to care as much about the subject as we do.
becca,
i left class feeling a bit guilty also. i'm still turning over in my head what rules of grammar (if any) are important for me to preserve in my own writing and honor in the classroom.
just a few weeks ago i spent time with my class explaining the difference between "effect" and "affect." after wednesday's class, however, i began to think that mini-lesson was a huge heaping waste of time. as bob said, i think it's likely that one of the two (probably "affect") will fade away very soon.
so what's so bad about that? why do i find it sad? i don't know. after all, i believe in and support the notion that people (and i mean all people, not just those hanging out in the ivory towers) have the power to change the language. so why not let "affect" slip away?
as a poet, i'm married to language, and particularly the english language. this is not only because english is my mothertongue, but because its vocabulary is ENORMOUS, far exceeding most (all?) other languages in the world. we are filthy rich in nouns, especially. catafalque, bloomery, hinge, glossalalia: hel-lo! true, many of these have roots in other languages, but perhaps that's just it: english is so rich because we take so much in, not because we kick stuff out. one of my favorite poets, the noun-heavy surrealist andre breton, reads so much better translated into english (as opposed to french, which is what he wrote in) because of the speficity of our language. it rules!
so i guess that side of me would hate to omit words from the language, especially if it's only for convenience's sake.
i'd also like to take this space to rant about a few grammar errors we didn't get to in class (they were at the bottom of the chalkboard list).
i'm not a stickler for grammar when it comes to the actual words: there they're their whatever, i know what you mean. but! punctuation!!! regarding analytic writing, i'm a rigid punctuationalist. in my book, you mess with dashes and you die slow.
1) so what is it with dashes? how come no one knows how to use them? not even good writers? a dash is NOT a hyphen. a dash is not even TWO hyphens, pitted next to each other. a dash is a beautiful tool. read up on it. i believe the em dash to be waaay superior to the en dash, fyi.
http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/091502.htm
2) single quotes. their only purpose in life (in american english) is to indicate a quote within a quote. at no other point should these guys be employed. stop using them.
3) ellipsis. used way too often and never correctly. there are spaces between those dots people! and only three dots, unless the ellipsis also ends the sentence (in this case, use four spaced-out dots).
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/ellipse.asp
i harbor no guilt for being an asshole about these grammar rules, though please know i only feel this way when reading scholarly writing. in poetry/fiction/etc., my brain be OPEN. and i don't see this as a contradiction.
I don't like elipses... Because people tend to use them like this... And then their writing sounds like it's coming out of the mouth of a morbidly obese man who just ran around the block...
i use the dash -- like this -- by putting two hypens next to each other, because most software will turn this into a dash automatically. Apparently blogger doesn't. The thing is, it's VERY hard to use the dash if you're typing. I mean, Alt + 0151? Using the "Symbol" menu in Word? I'm just going to stick to my double-hyphen and hope that it reads as a dash. I predict a future where the dash and hypen are eventually regarded as the same thing. The distinction is so small that the majority of people simply don't see it.
Wait, I guess Word does do the dash automatically if you throw in two hypens. But I guess whoever designed the QWERTY keyborad didn't think the dash was important enough to merit its own key. Though we do have the tilde ~~~~~~
dash and hyphen as same thing? i think the distinction is huge! booooooooo.
I think it's just a matter of length. But you can take that up with keyboard manufacturers.
It seems to me that rules fade away when we begin to write like we talk, which might not always be a bad thing. For some words, used in obvious contexts, this is not a problem. The reason, though, that rules in writing are not apparent in spoken language is that they are not necessary, because individuals speaking have a whole variety of tools to place their language in context or understand another’s language in its context.
When language is written, these contexts are not always apparent, which then requires more rules to convey what is being written. With the use of advanced emoticons, perhaps this will change. I only know how to make obscene images out of text. On top of that, I know a variety of dirty words that can be written on a standard calculator. That, however, is beside the point. So, I am up for maintaining some rule of law in American English, before anarchy prevails.
Single quotes inside of other quotes distinguish who is speaking more easily than if many double quotes were used. Even there, their, and they’re seem to have some value. For example, if I were to write, “Their dog,” what would it mean? Would it mean that there is a dog, over there somewhere and I forgot to insert a verb? Or, maybe, it implies comfort, as in “There, there dog. The mean old man is dead. Everything will be back to normal soon.” Or, it could mean what it means now, that they have a dog, those people over there.
Also, with the apostrophes, I see a need, though it is not a major one. Instances like Bob’s “‘Cats for sale’ versus ‘Cat’s for sale’” come to mind. While this might not be a common problem, it is one that could present itself. Having a language rule to distinguish how many of something is for sale can be very helpful. I remember how embarrassed I was when I traveled to Soho with $80,000, thinking I was getting a bucket of kidneys. Bucket in hand, I only returned with one. And it didn’t even feed my family.
I don’t really mind if effect or affect dominates the other and sends it into extinction. We have plenty of words that are spelled in the same way, but have different meanings. I will not, though, push this change. As it stands now, there are two words, with different meanings. I will honor these differences, especially in light of the fact that one of them will be, like red hair, gone in the next several decades.
(A note on the red hair: apparently red heads are not breeding with other red heads enough – see Elizabeth Kucinich – and as a result, the recessive gene will no longer exist sometime in the first half of this century. Even in Ireland. So, like during the potato famine or the snakes being chased out, another Irish cornerstone will be lost. But, unlike the potato, there will likely be no return. And Bruce Springsteen’s “Red-headed Woman,” unfortunately, will be lost in time. The Boss, however, will not. I also want to emphasize that I am not in anyway advocating the extinction of red hair in some sort of anti-Irish, slur-ridden blog. You’ll all notice that none of my people’s favorite Irish slurs appear here).
In the end, language reminds me of logic. Philosophical, symbolic logic. Every symbol matters, and the change of a symbol means a change in meaning. Teaching and encouraging students to understand symbols in terms of language seems similar to teaching symbolic logic, which is designed to help those who study it think, develop complex thoughts, and problem solve. There is a value to it. At the same time, I think back to our past discussions, and still agree with the majority opinion that as instructors our primary concern should be teaching and enabling expression and communication. Rules of Standard American English can come at the end and be like icing on the cake. As Bob pointed out, the practice can lead to expanded vocabularies.
Post a Comment