In his essay "Nine Ideas about Language," Harvey Daniels writes: "Given our affection for [classic masterpieces of literature], we quite naturally admire not only their content but their form. We find ourselves feelings that only in the nineteenth or sixteenth century could writers 'really use the language' correctly and beautifully. Frequently, we teach this notion in our schools, encouraging students to see the language of written literature as the only true and correct style of English. . . .The study, occasionally the official worship, of language forms that are both old and formal may retard linguistic changes currently in progress, as well as reinforce our mistaken belief that one style of language is always and truly the best" (17).
Do you have any experiences that support Harvey's claim that literature classes in school that focus on "literary masterpieces" sometimes encourage "worship of language forms that are old and formal" at the expense of other artful or effective styles of language that are more casual? Do you agree with his suggestion that this kind of activity is misguided and possibly harmful?
The only "experiences" that come to mind encompass my whole high school education. Whether British or English, all you ever read in textbooks are old and formal examples of "correct" grammar. Who says you can't use fragments in your writing? OR that you can't end a sentence with a preposition? Literature is an expression of one's self, and I was never encouraged to find myself through my writing. I was told how to express myself based on old, formal, and rigid rules of usage. I think our study of that type of literature is important, but so is teaching students how to communicate in today's world which would include allowing students to read for pleasure or at least expose them to modern styles of writing.
ReplyDeleteI feel my experiences with the lessons of reading and learning the "old and formal" English is a positive experience because I felt drawn into another world, another time and place. When reading these classic (as in Shakespeare) I feel a sense of awe and wonderment. I am not sure if learning these in High School is the time and place because I am not sure whether teenagers are at the maturity level in understanding and appreciating the art of the "old and formal" language. There is no harm in learning "old and formal". I think it enhances one's knowledge and appreciation. Students learn how to communicate in the world through various devices - teachers, peers, parents, business associates, etc.I say - No harm done in the learning of masterpieces.
ReplyDeleteLike with what other people in their comments are saying my main experience with the so-called older or proper English is in classes that involve British or American Literature. In a way I do agree with what Harvey was stating in how the idolizing or worship of such classical or older sounding English can be harmful in that we perhaps focus too much of our attention onto it rather than using works that are perhaps just as fresh and new. To me it seems that so many linguists or even professors at colleges kick these out of the water due to the fact they do not consider them as “literature”. I never understood how some works (some that I have read and hated with a passion!) were considered one of the great classical works of English, British, or American literature and how others which to me seemed just as beautiful and compelling were not considered so due to the more casual language that they use rather than sticking to the older sounding English that most people think of when they hear the term “literature”. While part of me sees no harm in appreciating such language and that I have read many works that involve it or use it, I think that a lot of times we concentrate a bit too much on it and are shoving works that could be just as culturally significant out the window due to this sense of worship we have developed for works that involve the use of an older sounding language. While it can add a sort of mysticism or higher element to the work, I have read plenty of works that are written in everyday language or English that people use in this day and age. I have enjoyed them and find them just as fascinating or interesting to read as works that feature a much more formal tone and language. I am not saying we should do away with it but I find that perhaps we concentrate a bit too much on it and hold on to this ideal that all literature must be this way in order to be considered great or else if it doesn’t, then it could not possibly be considered so.
ReplyDelete- Kaitlyn Hatton -
My “experience” that supports Harvey’s claim is when I had to read “Romeo and Juliette” in high school. I had problems understanding the “old and formal” language used by Shakespeare. My teacher tried to push upon me that all of his works were “literary masterpieces”. How could I gauge this without old English comprehension? The point being, I did not comprehend any of the texts “literary greatness,” and the teacher wanted me to just take her word for it that Shakespeare writes “literary masterpieces”. I obviously decided early on that she was wrong. I then had problems giving any “old and formal” text a fair shot at gaining my personal attention. I became one-sided and only concentrated on modern “literary masterpieces,” which in-turn made me miss out on different languages and dialect of the past. My point is that until I was made to take a British Literature course in college, and I now see that a balance of both old, formal, and new “literary masterpieces” are needed. I am now able gain to understanding into all literature, languages, and dialects. When you can read, digest, and retain all aspects of “literary masterpieces,” then you can enjoy and see greatness within any given work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paula that emphasis on the “old and formal” style at the introductory level may not be the best way to encourage appreciation and understanding of how language can be used effectively. In rhetoric classes we started out being introduced to the works of ancient Greek scholars as if we were used to hearing that style already. The closest to a more casual style we got was with Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn where we only see the vernacular as being written in a character’s voice separate from the author. It was understood that the characters who spoke that way were not well-educated. Less formal, more modern styles were made to seem like a “read them on your own time, we have no use for them in an academic setting” type of thing and not taken as seriously in the classroom. I think the problem is that most teachers don’t come out and really explain to the students that the whole point is simply to write effectively in any style. They assign students to read the classics as examples and act as if that is exactly the form of writing they should be aiming for themselves. Whether it’s intentional or not, by ignoring what I believe should be a bigger responsibility to promote more than just the classic formal style as first and foremost in great writing, which conditions us to believe that that is what the teacher wants to see, we wind up spending the rest of our education working against the notion that good English should not be allowed to evolve.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is important to be exposed to the different ways our language has been used throughout time, which is why, in high school, most students are not only exposed to Shakespearian plays, but also works such as The Canterbury Tales and Beowulf. I wouldn't go as far as to say that we are taught to "worship" it, but we are taught to appreciate it. I never had a teacher tell me, "You see how Chaucer wrote this? THIS is how I want you to write." I think that exposure to these different styles actually benefits us in the long run, whether we enjoy the piece of text or not. It exposes us to words we wouldn't normally use, different writing forms, and what translates best over the centuries.
ReplyDeleteAs for using the language "correctly and beautifully," the grammar usage shown in the past has changed, but I DO find it important to not end a sentence in a preposition, nor will I use sentence fragments. The problem with the logic that, "see[ing] the language of written literature as the only true and correct style of English" is that it doesn't seem to do that at all. I didn't learn my grammar usage from reading Macbeth. I learned it through exercises done in class and being corrected by my family. Of course, I do think that saying something like "The golden feline delightfully bounded across the frigid marble floor" sounds much more beautiful than "The cat jumped," and I think we can thank the study of language for that.
I definitely agree that high schools tend to stifle more experimental or casual ways of writing. My personal high school experience left me feeling somewhat jaded about the entire idea of writing. I certainly felt as though we were being taught to hold "classic" styles of writing in higher esteem than other styles. I always found this ironic because many of those so-called "classic" works were considered controversial or radical when they were being written. I also experienced discouragement of alternative writing styles when I took composition classes at a junior college. I do think that this type of thinking is harmful because many students who encounter this type of instruction will likely abandon any attempts to write. They might eventually feel as though they can't measure up to writing from Shakespeare. I think it's a huge problem to lose promising writers to disenchantment. I also think that this type of thinking keeps students from reading literature that wasn't produced by dead, white males.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do see the benefit of learning traditional forms and grammar rules, I think that high school students would benefit from learning alternative ways of composing literature. I agree that a lot of older literature contains language that is beautiful, but I don't necessarily believe that anything is absolutely correct and other ways of writing can be equally beautiful. Additionally, sometimes high students simply don't identify with older works. That's not to say that these works shouldn't be read, but I think it's beneficial to incorporate writings with language that students are able to relate to.
I lived in two very different places for high school, Houston TX and Ada OK, but I think that the school I attended in Houston tried to give a more well rounded exposure of newer and older literature we read things like The House On Mango Street alongside Romeo and Juliet and Catcher in the Rye, we didn't worship either but analyze both. we weren't exactly taught that either way was superior but that the important thing was to be able to understand and see what was being done rhetorically. we werent given a strict exact format to write but a basic this way is pretty effective but is not the only way. when i moved to Ada i think we focused more on just reading the classics(most of which i had already read) and we didn't read any modern classics i don't think we read anything by a living author while attending Ada, and i really like the classics but im also a guilty fan of teen fiction.
ReplyDeleteIn my high school English classes, Shakespeare was considered something of another language. Nobody understood it, nobody wanted to read it and whenever we were assigned one of his works, a collection of groans echoed around the room. I agree with Paula when she says that high school might not be the appropriate place to read these types of works because most teenagers don't really understand this style of writing. However, I was never taught that I should write in that style. It was never demanded of me to sound like a modern Shakespeare. I do think that kind of activity is harmful though. Its off putting for students and writers. We live in different times. I think that “artful and effective styles” are just as important to study as “old and formal”.
ReplyDelete- Melissa Keel
I do agree that the teachings of the older forms of literature can propose a new respect and adoration by readers, but as mentioned before, I think that this would happen more in college than in high school. As an English major, I enjoyed reading Shakespeare and others, but the students who were more into other subjects seemed far less interested than me. Now that I am around more people who have similar interests, I can see that reading such literature creates interest in the class.
ReplyDelete