NationStates Jolt Archive

One of my teaching assistant assignments this semester involves marking essays. A portion of the mark is for spelling/grammar/style and while some of it is subjective, I like to try and be as objective as possible. Yesterday I had a student come by who started to claim that many of what I called grammatical errors (or "extremely awkward sentences which barely make sense") were a difference in style, not an actual mistake on his part. Since this kid is a good salesperson (he tried to equate my comment to this effect as me saying he'd be a good lawyer... I suspect that lawyers need a better command of the English language) he managed to get an extra two marks out of me on this point. And I've been thinking about it and I really don't think that he deserved the extra marks. He might have deserved one, but not more.

I think that part of the problem is that I don't really have a good idea of what constitutes proper grammar and what is actually a difference in style. Part of this is probably because my early English classes were more about creative writing and reading and all this and then later on, knowledge of grammar rules was assumed.

Does anybody know where one can find guides that go into some detail about grammar rules in the English language? If I know the rules well, then it should be harder for someone to sell me on the point that they deserve marks they haven't earned.

Also, if someone has a lot of experience marking things which are somewhat subjective who has some advice on this point, this would be appreciated (I was thinking of creating a rubric and sharing this with my colleagues).

show some confidence woman if the kid thinks he can tell you how to do your goddamn marking you should go over his work with a fine tooth comb pointing out every mistake you can

show some confidence woman if the kid thinks he can tell you how to do your goddamn marking you should go over his work with a fine tooth comb pointing out every mistake you can

Quoted for truth. You teacher, he pupil.
And marks aren't supposed to be bargained for.

me fail english? That's unpossible!

I would just reffer you to my 9th grade English teacher - she was the demonic incarnation of grammar itself.

But since she's lost to the past, I give you wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar

I would just reffer you to my 9th grade English teacher - she was the demonic incarnation of grammar itself.

But since she's lost to the past, I give you wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar

Looks like she gave spelling a wide berth though:D

She failed me. What else do you want to know? =p

show some confidence woman if the kid thinks he can tell you how to do your goddamn marking you should go over his work with a fine tooth comb pointing out every mistake you can
Yes, I do need to do this. I think that I'm also going to give a wait period for remarking. Like if someone comes and argues, I'll listen to them and I'll look over their paper after they've left and update the mark if necessary (unless it's something that I definitely overlooked). I don't think that we're allowed to lower marks though.

Quoted for truth. You teacher, he pupil.
And marks aren't supposed to be bargained for.
Yes, and next time he won't get a bargain. I'm slightly upset that I gave him one this time though. I mean, really, it makes a difference of less than 2% of his final mark and given that the tests are marked with scantron... a machine isn't going to bump a mark if it's wrong.

I don't know exactly how it's supposed to be graded, but, really, just having a "different style" does not always mean that a paper is as good as the same basic paper written more clearly. If a paper is written in such a way that it does not effectively and clearly communicate its point, then it's not a good paper. Not all writing styles are equally valid in every situation, and some are just bad almost no matter where you try to use them.

Can you give us an example of one of this students answers? Or a reasonable facsimile?

if you think he might have a case talk it over with your supervisor.

Does anybody know where one can find guides that go into some detail about grammar rules in the English language?
There are dozens and dozens of books on the subject, and they're likely to be as close as you'll get to anything definitive. In the time I spend typing this out, someone will no doubt have linked to the wiki entry on grammar, I suspect, but, just in case, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar) it is. If it was English, as opposed to American English, I'd make a couple of recommendations, but I'm told that there are a number of grammatical differences these days (although I can't honestly say that I've ever noticed, excepting the whole could/couldn't care less thing). The Elephants of Style : A Trunkload of Tips on the Big Issues and Gray Areas of Contemporary American English (http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Style-Trunkload-Contemporary-American/dp/0071422684/ref=pd_sim_b_6) looks like it might fit the bill.

Also (I tend not do this sort of thing, and I'm aware that you may well have just been taking the piss, so please don't take it as any kind of slight)...
show some confidence woman if the kid thinks he can tell you how to do your goddamn marking you should go over his work with a fine tooth comb pointing out every mistake you can
Show some confidence, woman! If the kid thinks that he can tell you how to do your goddamned marking then you should go over his work with a fine-toothed comb, pointing out every mistake that you can find.
The second version, above, looks to me to be a grammatically correct translation of the quote. The question is, is it worth correcting it? I tend to be a bit of a stickler for getting things written down correctly, but I don't think that anyone actually had any difficulty understanding the original quote. In fact, the original is much, much closer to something that you'd expect someone to actually say, rather than commit to text and, because of that, I seem to find it easier to read. Maybe the "language needs to be allowed to evolve" advocates have it right, after all.

me fail english? That's unpossible!
Indeed.

Can you give us an example of one of this students answers? Or a reasonable facsimile?

Nah, he took the paper with him (they're allowed to). He used a number of sentences which didn't make sense including one that incorporated an apostrophe to make a noun plural (like toys').

He claimed that it was edited by a prof... maybe it was edited by an inattentive prof or one who also has shitty grammar. I sort of took his word for this and went with a "well, maybe he did get it edited and whoever edited it sucked..." but at least if he comes in next time and claims that a prof edited his work, then I can tell him that he should have learned that whichever prof edited his work did not do a good job and he can suck it up.

Try making him analyse his sentences.

Start easy ... What's the subject of this sentence? Does it agree with the verb?

Work up a bit ... Have you used the right tense? What does this clause refer to? Can you think of some synonyms for this word that you've now used three times in the same paragraph?

And a bit more ... Why, why, why do you let your participles dangle all over the place like that? Have you even heard of the active voice, for god's sake? Do you think you're writing for some bloody public relations firm?

... sorry. My inner sub-editor took over.

But, seriously, some day someone is going to point out his mistakes. Better you do it kindly than let him run into someone like me.

If it was English, as opposed to American English, I'd make a couple of recommendations, but I'm told that there are a number of grammatical differences these days (although I can't honestly say that I've ever noticed, excepting the whole could/couldn't care less thing). The Elephants of Style : A Trunkload of Tips on the Big Issues and Gray Areas of Contemporary American English (http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Style-Trunkload-Contemporary-American/dp/0071422684/ref=pd_sim_b_6) looks like it might fit the bill.

It's Canadian English. So it's a bit of a bastardization of English, but not quite as bastardized as American English.

The second version, above, looks to me to be a grammatically correct translation of the quote. The question is, is it worth correcting it? I tend to be a bit of a stickler for getting things written down correctly, but I don't think that anyone actually had any difficulty understanding the original quote. In fact, the original is much, much closer to something that you'd expect someone to actually say, rather than commit to text and, because of that, I seem to find it easier to read. Maybe the "language needs to be allowed to evolve" advocates have it right, after all.

Well, when it comes to forums, I don't really care to much (as long as people aren't typing things like "r u going 2 da park b4 skol?" in which case I want to strangle said person), but when it's for marks, even if it's a piddly little assignment in a "bird" course, I have standards. And maybe I take my job too seriously in this respect, but now I feel like I've been unfair to all of the other students who did a better job than this one and ended up with a worse mark (grammar wasn't his only failing).

But, seriously, some day someone is going to point out his mistakes. Better you do it kindly than let him run into someone like me.

This is true. I don't know how he's going to get by in the real world if he has to write anything professionally.

It's Canadian English. So it's a bit of a bastardization of English, but not quite as bastardized as American English.

Written English follows the same rules for sentence structure everywhere. Spelling and terminology differ somewhat, but I suspect that this is due to the rather loose spelling rules in place at the time of our revolution. There is some leeway in the order of some sentence clauses, but maintaining verb tenses and first or third person narration are rather important.

In fact, the original is much, much closer to something that you'd expect someone to actually say, rather than commit to text and, because of that, I seem to find it easier to read. Maybe the "language needs to be allowed to evolve" advocates have it right, after all.

you mean people don't write as they speak? that concept seems weird to me

Depends what you're looking for...there's descriptive grammar and prescriptive grammar.

Prescriptive grammar says "Ever end a sentence with a prepostition" which creates sentences like "May I ask with whom I am speaking" and "That is a rule up with which I will not put".

Descriptive grammar basically describes how a grammatical structure is used in the greater body of rhetoric. So long as meaning is not lost, just about anything goes. It describes how grammar is actually used rather than telling us how it should be used. It describes the difference between the soft flowing style of this:

The charmed sunset linger’d low adown
In the red West; thro’ mountain clefts the dale 20
Was seen far inland, and the yellow down
Border’d with palm, and many a winding vale
And meadow, set with slender galingale;
A land where all things always seem’d the same!
And round about the keel with faces pale, 25
Dark faces pale against that rosy flame,
The mild-eyed melancholy Lotos-eaters came.

and the harsh style of this

Daddy, I have had to kill you.
You died before I had time---
Marble-heavy, a bag full of God,
Ghastly statue with one gray toe
Big as a Frisco seal

EDIT: I forgotto post my actual advice. If you want prescriptive, look to Elements of Style. If you want descriptive, look to Artful Sentences.

It's Canadian English. So it's a bit of a bastardization of English, but not quite as bastardized as American English.

I feel the need to, again, point out that American English is closer to the way English was prior to Britain becoming more involved Europe. They've changed far more than we have. So the Brits have bastardized their language, not us.

I've graded writing assignments before...

I'd point the kid to Strunk and White's Elements of Style, then I'd keep the grades the same.

I've been in so many English and writing classes over the years that I may not be able to cite every rule from memory since there are so many of them, but I know what looks right and what doesn't.

If that kid or someone else comes and argues style, I'd simply say "I'm grading for usage. When you have strong enough command of English usage, then you can develop your own voice. But right now, you need to get the mechanics right."

And I wouldn't change his marks. Let him try to appeal it to the professor if he feels your grading system is unjust.

>>Does anybody know where one can find guides that go into some detail about grammar rules in the English language?

If you are looking for a book that will help you with English usage, I recommend Right, Wrong, and Risky by Mark Davidson. It is not a speech-diagram grammar book but it IS quite helpful for those questionable areas of the English language. It is also well written and entertaining. I use it frequently, and no, I don't get a kickback for recommending it.

I hope recommending a genuine book from reality doesn't break any rules here. I apologize for my first-day gaff if it does.

I'm using Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English at my English grammar courses. It's supposed to be a good "pedagogical coursebook at university or on teacher-training courses, and an invaluable reference grammar." If you want something more extensive there is the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.

Here's an Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Hardcover-Longman-Grammar-Written-English/dp/0582237254

Some info on the student version:

examines patterns of use in news, fiction, academic, and spoken English

takes grammar and vocabulary together and looks at how they interact

is based on an analysis of 40-million words of British and American, written and spoken corpus text

uses over 3000 examples of real, corpus English to illustrate the points

uses frequency tables and graphs to make the new findings of this grammar clear

I can't say from personal experience, because it's the only one I've ever read, but according to my professor it is supposed to be one of the more reader friendly grammars out there.

I agree with Nomala. Longman does make some good grammar books. I keep Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English at the office as a reference for teaching teachers how to teach EFL.

(It's an odd job, but someone has to do it.)

Teachers are so weak nowadays, compared to when I was in school.

When I was in middle school, we were taught to diagram sentences to analyze grammar. This also proved useful in showing the use of parallelism in speeches (take a look at Kennedy's "Ask not" speech for an example).

They don't teach sentence diagramming in schools today - most kids have no clue as to the basic parts of speech.

I understand the sentiment, Hotwife, but i question the focus.

I too studied grammar the "hard" way, but i think that education policy, not teacher strength or weakness, is the factor most affecting language arts instruction.

Remember "Whole Language" and the semi-disaster that turned out to be? It wasn't the teachers who insisted on using that system, though teacher disenchantment may have been part of the cause of its failure.

I understand the sentiment, Hotwife, but i question the focus.

I too studied grammar the "hard" way, but i think that education policy, not teacher strength or weakness, is the factor most affecting language arts instruction.

Remember "Whole Language" and the semi-disaster that turned out to be? It wasn't the teachers who insisted on using that system, though teacher disenchantment may have been part of the cause of its failure.

Whole language was indeed a debacle.

They don't teach sentence diagramming in schools today.

Yes they do, at least in every school whose curriculum I'm familiar with.

Anyway, to the OP, Strunk and White is always a good starting point. Beyond that, though, I think you should just make a policy of not changing grades without a really good reason, because otherwise you're going to find yourself dealing with this guy and all of his friends and all of THEIR friends after every single paper.

Well, grammar is lies, really.

At least if we're talking about prescriptive grammar which gives rules and commands.

Language is not a constant and always changing, but we've developed rules for the supposed sake of having the maximum number of speakers/readers understand each other, even though no one really has difficulty understanding what is meant when a writer doesn't use the conventions of prescriptive grammar. Sometimes it's tricky, but only when descriptive grammar rules are broken.

Descriptive grammar says what is, not what should be. "English speakers use 'I' in the nominative and 'me' in the accusative." It may be in fifty years that everyone uses 'me' in both cases, but that's not what is now. The only time we're really confused in writing and reading is when descriptive rules are broken, not when prescriptive rules are broken (spelling is another beast entirely).

Style becomes tricky, especially in writing, because once you get past the basics, anything goes. "Never begin a sentence with a conjunction!" But we do it in speaking all the time, which means our descriptive grammar allows it, and there are stylistic reasons to allow it as well. If I want a longer visual pause than a mere comma, then I'm going to use a period which requires a new sentence.

"A comma doesn't go there." But I want a visual pause there.

"Your sentence is a run-on." That's the point; it's supposed to ramble.

In some domains things like this just aren't acceptable. No one care about your art when you're writing about quasars. Or the chemicals in birth control pills. In these domains, we only care about you presenting your arguments and facts in a clear way. That demands less flourish.

You can get away with more art in the social sciences, but not that much more.

You can get away with a lot in the humanities or none at all, depending on what the topic and form are.

So depending on which domain you're in and what the purpose of the paper is, a lot of the "rules" may be squishy or may not apply at all.

If you want a quick reference, there are some TEFL training schools that make you take English grammar tests to get into their programs. Those can be pretty extensive guides to grammar since you are supposed to understand English well enough to teach it as a foreign language, which means you do have to understand the difference between acceptable styles and idioms and plain old errors.

If you find a good test, save it, and the next time some little smart-ass who knows how to run a shell game but can't spell his own name the same way twice tries to renegotiate his marks, tell him that if he scores at least 95% on the TEFL grammar test, his prize will be a reevaluation of his paper.

I think the most important thing is just that you be consistent, and grade this student's paper the same way that you would grade any other's.

I wouldn't get too caught up in being 100% technically correct (unless that's the precise function of your job). None of my university English profs seemed to actually care too much about that; the only professor I ever had who dinged me for my tendency to end sentences with prepositions was the chair of the Poli Sci department. It ticked me off, but after talking to other students it became clear that this was his 'thing'. And he was consistent about enforcing it, so I really couldn't get too ticked off about it. I just had to adapt the style that I wrote my papers with. I mean, with which I wrote my papers.

Consistency is Key.

Does anybody know where one can find guides that go into some detail about grammar rules in the English language? If I know the rules well, then it should be harder for someone to sell me on the point that they deserve marks they haven't earned.

I am a very, very poor student and thus have taken intro college English many, many times, acquiring many, many style manuals in the process. Based on my experience, I'd say you want either The Bedford Handbook or Longman (both, I think, referenced earlier in this thread.) Strunk & White is the classic and is more concise -- the advantage of Bedford or Longman is that they've got exercise sets that you can either do yourself (to help you get a handle on the rules) or suggest to your essayists. If what you want is just a reference (without exercises) I think your best bet is the Chicago Manual of Style. It's online at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html.

I think the best method for you to find a good manual that will work for you is to drop by the nearest college bookstore and do some browsing. They usually have more than one style manual because every ENG 101 teacher has a favorite. Look for one with an extensive index and exercise sets. Don't buy the one in the store; go home, get online and buy the previous edition through valorebooks.com or a similar site, because it'll be just as good and about a tenth of the price.

Also, if someone has a lot of experience marking things which are somewhat subjective who has some advice on this point, this would be appreciated (I was thinking of creating a rubric and sharing this with my colleagues).

This is just idle guessing on my part, but I would start with the instructor's goals for the course (presumably outlined in the syllabus.) Different instructors are going to put different emphases on grammar, content, creativity, clarity etc. Ambush the instructor during office hours if necessary to get a firm idea of what's expected of students. Once you have that, I think you can use your judgement and your handy style manual to figure out what are major and what are minor lapses.

An' stick to yer guns, fer heavens' sake!

In some domains things like this just aren't acceptable. No one care about your art when you're writing about quasars. Or the chemicals in birth control pills. In these domains, we only care about you presenting your arguments and facts in a clear way. That demands less flourish.

You can get away with more art in the social sciences, but not that much more.

You can get away with a lot in the humanities or none at all, depending on what the topic and form are.

So depending on which domain you're in and what the purpose of the paper is, a lot of the "rules" may be squishy or may not apply at all.

I'm in science. The class is a general astronomy class. They should be using words correctly, accurately and concisely. I'm not looking for professional-level sorts of papers, but I'm looking for a demonstration of basic high school English at least.

There's an amusing grammar and punctuation book by Lyn Truss entitled "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" that you'll like and there is a very good free online resource called OWL:
owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/

If you want a quick reference, there are some TEFL training schools that make you take English grammar tests to get into their programs. Those can be pretty extensive guides to grammar since you are supposed to understand English well enough to teach it as a foreign language, which means you do have to understand the difference between acceptable styles and idioms and plain old errors.

If you find a good test, save it, and the next time some little smart-ass who knows how to run a shell game but can't spell his own name the same way twice tries to renegotiate his marks, tell him that if he scores at least 95% on the TEFL grammar test, his prize will be a reevaluation of his paper.

...I'm so doing that.

If it's a "writing style," the 'style' should be consistent through out the paper.

If the grammar mistakes are not consistent with a pattern of language, they are mistakes. It takes a bit of deductive reasoning to identify a language pattern, but just pay attention to the nature and pattern of the mistakes - if they are consistently made the same way, then it's intentional (think Yoda). If the mistakes come and go (think someone totally drunk), they're mistakes.