Post by Lene Mahler Jaqua on Nov 4, 2004 10:49:22 GMT -5
I cross posted this with the WTM board as a springboard for discussion on teaching punctuation...
on puncutation... and old English models.
I think the best way to deal with punctuation is NOT to deal with it much until the kids are older. That is, DO teach them they must put a period (or ? or !) at the end of every sentence. Teach them commas in a list and quotatiions. Do teach them they need some sort of "natural" pause punctuation between clauses and certain types of phrases, clauses and phrases are slowly introduced. IOW it comes naturally to teach punctuation along with syntax in grammar.
THEN, when they have grammar down well, go back and teach all the picky details of comma use, colons, semi-colons, etc. Do a quick survey, and they're done. It will make perfect sense after the grammar.
When they're older, you can also explain that many aspects of punctuation use are *highly* variable over time, and so old models will not follow modern conventions.
The reasons for what becomes conventional punctuation at any given historical period can be exceedingly silly -- like with the old American colonial printing presses that used wooden vs. metal type and so required periods and commas to go inside quotation marks (contra European standards) so they wouldn't break off!
Chances are, as students come to understand grammar, they WILL make reasonable punctuation choices where it matters. All the modern "rules", apart from the basis they do have in the underlying grammatical structures, are little more than arbitrary conventions that only recently have become solidified into absolutes (for non-grammatical reasons). Today, at the lower grade levels, "rules" are taught with no reference whatsoever to the underlying grammar and no indication that they are NOT, metaphysically or linguistically speaking, any kind of absolute.
People get so unbendingly wound up in
"correctness" over them, when correctness ought not to be the only goal. Clarity and effective communication should rank even higher.
It's the same error we make when we mistake etiquette for morality. How much stigma do we attach to otherwise perfectly good-hearted, intelligent people simply because
they don't conform to an arbitrary standard we think they must conform to: selecting the wrong fork at dinner, wearing an out-of-fashion hem length, or speaking with an accent? It becomes elitist, like having a
secret handshake to enter the club.
The biggest drawback to a post-grammar, delayed approach to punctuation is that children will do poorly on that section of standardized tests. (My own 9 and 11 yo kids do OK, but where they ace the rest of the IOWA, punctuation is not their strongest suit yet).
The tests make a huge deal out of punctuation at the lower grade levels.
Don't misunderstand, though, I would never advocate NOT learning the modern conventions; I just think they can be taught more effectively and more reasonably later. In the meantime, we are freed up to enjoy rich, old, classical writing, and we (and our children) will avoid imposing arbitrary and unjust stigma on great old writers, who were undoubtedly both better thinkers and better
communicators than we ourselves are today.
on puncutation... and old English models.
I think the best way to deal with punctuation is NOT to deal with it much until the kids are older. That is, DO teach them they must put a period (or ? or !) at the end of every sentence. Teach them commas in a list and quotatiions. Do teach them they need some sort of "natural" pause punctuation between clauses and certain types of phrases, clauses and phrases are slowly introduced. IOW it comes naturally to teach punctuation along with syntax in grammar.
THEN, when they have grammar down well, go back and teach all the picky details of comma use, colons, semi-colons, etc. Do a quick survey, and they're done. It will make perfect sense after the grammar.
When they're older, you can also explain that many aspects of punctuation use are *highly* variable over time, and so old models will not follow modern conventions.
The reasons for what becomes conventional punctuation at any given historical period can be exceedingly silly -- like with the old American colonial printing presses that used wooden vs. metal type and so required periods and commas to go inside quotation marks (contra European standards) so they wouldn't break off!
Chances are, as students come to understand grammar, they WILL make reasonable punctuation choices where it matters. All the modern "rules", apart from the basis they do have in the underlying grammatical structures, are little more than arbitrary conventions that only recently have become solidified into absolutes (for non-grammatical reasons). Today, at the lower grade levels, "rules" are taught with no reference whatsoever to the underlying grammar and no indication that they are NOT, metaphysically or linguistically speaking, any kind of absolute.
People get so unbendingly wound up in
"correctness" over them, when correctness ought not to be the only goal. Clarity and effective communication should rank even higher.
It's the same error we make when we mistake etiquette for morality. How much stigma do we attach to otherwise perfectly good-hearted, intelligent people simply because
they don't conform to an arbitrary standard we think they must conform to: selecting the wrong fork at dinner, wearing an out-of-fashion hem length, or speaking with an accent? It becomes elitist, like having a
secret handshake to enter the club.
The biggest drawback to a post-grammar, delayed approach to punctuation is that children will do poorly on that section of standardized tests. (My own 9 and 11 yo kids do OK, but where they ace the rest of the IOWA, punctuation is not their strongest suit yet).
The tests make a huge deal out of punctuation at the lower grade levels.
Don't misunderstand, though, I would never advocate NOT learning the modern conventions; I just think they can be taught more effectively and more reasonably later. In the meantime, we are freed up to enjoy rich, old, classical writing, and we (and our children) will avoid imposing arbitrary and unjust stigma on great old writers, who were undoubtedly both better thinkers and better
communicators than we ourselves are today.