When first thinking about grammar rants, I heard myself correcting my students, friends and family. While not one to go on a rant, I felt like I knew certain grammar rules that I wanted to “teach” others to learn. Looking back on it, this over-correction was incredibly condescending to my friends and family (I am leaving out my students because I had the role of teacher and much of my corrections were made in a non-threatening context). I am certainly no grammar Einstein, and as my previous post suggests, I am actually very self-conscious of my own writing.
I found my search for a grammar rant an interesting activity. However, it was through these searches that I began to see some clever reactions to these rants, which turned out to be more thought-provoking than some of the crass expletives I found on-line. So, when I ran across the YouTube video “Grammar Nazis” parodying the idea of grammar rants, I was intrigued. Created by the individuals at College Humor, the video is a depiction of a Nazi looking for a Jew through the questioning of another man who has difficulty with (ironically) the English Language.
Before getting into the grammar rules this particular video breaks down, I want to acknowledge the many ironies presented in the film. Obviously, by using a story of a Nazi who is constantly correcting the grammar of the other individual, we see the creators poking fun of the irritating individual (namely me) who is correcting others. The negative connotation of “Grammar” Nazi as a cultural idiom is already incredibly offensive. Yet, it is the final grammar discretion made by the Nazi that ultimately leads to the resolution. The Nazi commits suicide, because he uses a dangling participle. Out of all the errors made, it is the Nazi’s error that would seem to cause the most misunderstanding.
The different grammar rules that this particular video pokes at involves: double negatives, incorrect pronoun usage, ending a sentence with a preposition, run-on sentences, subject-verb agreement, who vs. whom, comma uses in a list, and the violent finality of the Nazi using a dangling participle.
Some of these mistakes are common auditory mistakes representing a “social class of language misuse”. At least, when I think about the study on grammar rants, it is the inequity of access to education combined (possibly) with different literacy backgrounds that leads me to this conclusion. Double negatives, situations of pronoun misuse (using me and her, instead of her and I ‘went…’), subject-verb agreement, and the uses of “who” vs. “whom”, are all common mistakes that do not greatly impact meaning. For the most part, we have all heard these common mistakes frequently enough that I know I make them myself.
Now for my three particulars:
#1-Comma uses in a list- This particular rule only applies to writing and has the same sense of elitism connected to it. In the end, it all hinges upon the author’s knowledge of very particular formats.
#2- The Dangling Participle- This rule is easily the one apt to cause the most misunderstandings. However, in context most of us can easily discern the speaker or writer’s meaning.
#3- Ending a Sentence with a Preposition- This rule is especially important for me. Like I previously stated, I had no formal training of grammar. So, it was not until an essay I had written in college, did I ever take it upon myself to figure out what a preposition was. My professor had written in the comments to never end a sentence with a preposition. I can tell you that I was dumb-struck. Not only did I have serious questions about using a preposition in general, but I did not understand why it was grammatically incorrect. Either way, I clung to that fact for all future writing assignments.
And then I found this video. Inspired by the combination of activities, I sought out the answer to “why don’t we end sentences with a preposition?” You know what I found out? There is no agreement in the grammar community about using this rule. There is even something called a “terminal preposition” which is found at the end of a sentence.
How ludicrous are these grammar rules? Without clarity and with frequent disagreement, my stance is: pretty darn ludicrous!
Check out the video here:
http://youtu.be/N4vf8N6GpdM
Check out the video here:
Oh, man, Patricia, this video is great! It's appropriate that it is a parody of the opening scene of Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, with its incorrect SWE title--what Krauthammer calls, in Spoken Language Interference Patterns, a phonological error SLIP.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that someone picked up the grammar Nazi trope and ran with it. In two of the grammar rants I looked at, the ranters call themselves "grammar Nazis." You are right to point out that this is potentially offensive. It seems, though, that since Seinfeld's soup Nazi entered popular culture, calling oneself a Nazi has become much more permissible and laughable.
The lampooning of the inflexibility of self-declared "grammar Nazis" in this video is spot- on. Putting forth the idea that he that is without grammar "sin" should cast the first stone is totally appropriate. No one uses grammar perfectly. And no one should desire to. Conversation and expressive writing would become quite stilted if speakers' and writers' attention were primarily focused on using grammar correctly.
It is satisfying to see the Nazi fall on his own sword, recognizing the error of his ways. If only life were so simple and justice so ample.
....Double negatives, situations of pronoun misuse (using me and her, instead of her and I ‘went…’), subject-verb agreement....
ReplyDeletesurely you mean "she and I went"