Apostrophe Abuse

Taking the piss is not fluffy. Bad Jill.

Language may evolve, but the examples you're using are situations where register has shifted rather than accuracy. Even the semi-colon thing is sort of a stylistic shift.

Personally I think using text language within a formal letter or a review
is just lazy. I would not be interested in continuing to read, let alone rate,
a review that was so poorly presented.

Quote :

Language may evolve, but the examples you're using are situations where register has shifted rather than accuracy. Even the semi-colon thing is sort of a stylistic shift.

Fair cop, gov, damn and blast you.

However, you gotsta admit that you're going to look a right old has-been if you moan about that inevitable piece of textspeak art. Admit it.

How about 'wouldn't' and 'shouldn't'? I'll bet there isn't a person on this forum save you, Andy, who knows what's happened over the last fifty years with those words. Is that a better example? Phrases used as sentences for emphasis?

Ah, but I wouldn't necessarily moan about textspeak art. People who moan about young people writing in textspeak are missing the crucial point that young people are at least writing. In some form.

I DO have grave misgivings about texting in that I feel it has the capacity to limit expression and could lead to a 'newspeak' style restricted vocabulary if left unchecked. But that's me being melodramatic.

And, yup, wouldn't and shouldn't would be a much better example. And let's not forget good old 'whom'.

Quote :

Ah, but I wouldn't necessarily moan about textspeak art. People who moan about young people writing in textspeak are missing the crucial point that young people are at least writing. In some form.

Actually, that's another point I wanted to make. Illiteracy, poor literacy, inarticulacy - these aren't new. Schools aren't producing fewer literate people than they used to produce during the good old days of grammatical fascism. It's simply that less literate people are more visible. They are communicating more often in written form, thanks to the good ol' information revolution. In fact, literacy levels have been rising consistently for years and years. I love the internet and mobile phone texting (well, I love texting from a distance, as I wouldn't actually do any of it myself). It has given a forum to those who have not, hitherto, had a forum. It's making people use words, even if some of them are using words in an awkward, gauche kind of way.

And of course too, a lot of what I'm saying is devil's advocacy. But if I don't say it, and if I don't say it by beginning sentences with 'but', nobody's going to [say it]. We'll all just descend into being condescending and nasty about other people just because they don't know the little smidgeons of grammar that we know. Like apostrophes.

..

Jill, I do see your point, and I also understand the devil's advocacy. I'm not sure about your assertion that many children today are no less literate than many children of the past.

When my daughter was smaller (and, to a lesser extent, even now), I noticed that children's grammar and spelling were/are not routinely checked or corrected - so long as the child is being 'creative,' the form and structure seem to often be irrelevant (except for in exercises that were specifically teaching spelling or grammar). Even now, I think (and I happily admit I could be wrong, though I have gone to look it up...) grammar and spelling only count 5% towards your GCSE English grade. Therefore, in theory (and I realise this would never happen), you could write a GCSE essay with no punctuation or capital letters and still attain 95% on your GCSE.

So I do think that schools are turning out less literate writers than schools in times past. I am, however, aware that my father said the same thing (he had to diagramme sentences).

I am not a fanatic when it comes to small errors in a review, but would like to say that I think the standard of education fell in the 80's when England seemed to be struggling to pursuade people to teach instead of going into more commercial and better paying jobs. If I remember rightly, they lowered the qualifications of potential Teacher Training Students and there must be some kick back from having teachers with lesser qualifications surely.

You remember wrongly.

For many, many, many years you didn't need a degree to teach, and the requirements have become more and more demanding as time has gone on, while the poor souls who do make it through the process have to put up with the kind of ignorant, half-remembered crap you've just spouted.

As a trained teacher, albeit a determinedly former teacher, I'm disgusted that you would slander a tough and noble profession with such slurs based on your half-remembered exploits twenty years ago. And I demand a full apology and retraction.

I apologise for my mistake and retract my statement. I did say "if I remember rightly" and I did have a memory of this from personal experience, but the memory plays tricks. No offence was meant at all.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

I ... would like to say that I think the standard of education fell in the 80's when England seemed to be struggling to pursuade people to teach instead of going into more commercial and better paying jobs. If I remember rightly, they lowered the qualifications of potential Teacher Training Students and there must be some kick back from having teachers with lesser qualifications surely.

Yes, they did. They withdrew the previous requirement to have an O-level or equivalent in Maths or English, it was replaced by an basic assessment 'on course'. Those failing to pass this test were expected to follow a supplementary course.

Quote :

For many many years you did not require a degree to teach

No, you didn't, but you had to be well educated and the certificated training was a three year course. This qualification is now acknowledged as degree-equivalent, in the same way as a Higher National Diploma, it was a vocational qualification.

At that time it took four years to gain a B.Ed . It is now possible for those with 'appropriate' (in demand) academic or vocational degrees or work experience to be trained by schools alone, and supervised by the LEA.

During the 1980's it was fashionable for children to be taught to read by giving them free choice of reading material, phonics in any shape or form were thought unnecessary and the teaching of spelling, as a skill, was frowned upon. Some LEAs used the initial teaching alphabet (ITA) as an introduction to literacy, which messed up a whole generation of children.

Quote :

I apologise for my mistake and retract my statement. I did say "if I remember rightly" and I did have a memory of this from personal experience, but the memory plays tricks. No offence was meant at all.

Apology accepted, but you really should not insult a tough profession if you are not sure of your facts.

Quote :

Yes, they did. They withdrew the previous requirement to have an O-level or equivalent in Maths or English, it was replaced by an basic assessment 'on course'. Those failing to pass this test were expected to follow a supplementary course.

A meaningless piece of bureaucracy given that you needed strong literacy and numeracy to be accepted into university in the first place. As it stands now, thanks to the bleating of people like you, even people who have A* English GCSE, A at A level and at least one university degree are forced to sit a basic literacy test. And I do mean basic. You have to go to a test centre and do it on a computer. Cost millions to set up. I'll point the next 100 disgruntled taxpayers in your dierction.

Quote :

At that time it took four years to gain a B.Ed . It is now possible for those with 'appropriate' (in demand) academic or vocational degrees or work experience to be trained by schools alone, and supervised by the LEA.

No it isn't. They still trundle off to a university at least once a week for their core training, don't you worry. At least, I assume you mean the GTP here, and not something you've just made up.

Quote :

During the 1980's it was fashionable for children to be taught to read by giving them free choice of reading material, phonics in any shape or form were thought unnecessary and the teaching of spelling, as a skill, was frowned upon. Some LEAs used the initial teaching alphabet (ITA) as an introduction to literacy, which messed up a whole generation of children.

Gosh. Well, first that has nothing to do with teachers' qualifications, naturally. That's a reflection of continuing research into the way people learn and process information. Not a sinister plot to turn the nation's children into vegetables as you seem to be suggesting.

Second, I was at school in the 1980s. Frankly, I'll bet £10 right here and now that I'm more literate than you.

"Messed up a whole generation of children." I mean, seriously, where do you people get off with this condescending crap? Teaching is a hard enough job as it is, without all these smug Daily Mail assumptions about how education should be.

Ooohhh - at home today so I can post here unseen by anyone who thinks I should be working.

What a debate - - well done to FOIB2!

OK. On topic. Just reading my two lines above should tell you that I fall somewhere between the two main thoughts on here, the first being that grammar and punctuation matter dearly and the second being that it doesn't (and is, potentially, a visible sign of language evolution). I've used the dash in place of a colon (or two). I've used a smiley (sorry, Jill!). I have used incorrect punctuation in the sentence before this; but I do know.

Grammar, to me, is rather like BBC English/received pronunciation. There are times when it is appropriate and times when it is not. The key, to me, is flexibility. Whilst I don't think it necessary for everyone to speak using RP, I do like to hear it on the news. I am finding that I have to concentrate more and more as strong regional accents become more prevalent in mainstream broadcatsing. I appreciate regional reports but anchors should, in my opinion, be easy to understand.

In the same way, grammar use/misuse should adapt to the situation. When I interview for training posts I do take note of mistakes in applications - these people want jobs where accuracy is cruicial and yet they fail to check their applications. On the other hand, when I mentor 15 year olds by email I wouldn't dream of picking up the errors made save where we are talking in the context of applications for jobs.

I laugh when I read that the "greengrocer's have potatoe's for sale". I cringe when the bus announces "Bus stopping at next stop. Stand clear of doors". Whatever happened to the definite article? It's a crime against language but in these situations it's not going to harm.

We have set ideas as to what constitutes literacy. I think that there is a bit of a vicious circle being set up here: the purists find that a lack of good grammar gets in the way of their reading yet there are those who prefer simple sentences and who couldn't read a long piece of prose. Rhetorical question: if Shakespere were to write in the café, would we mark him down? I suspect that the purists wouldn't, those who support an evolving language would. To the first group the Bard is accessible. To the second he might as well be talking in Greek.

Quote :

I was at school in the 1980s

You were obviously lucky, plenty weren't.

If you want to continue your argument with me, please do it in private. Thankyou.

Children, children! Put your toys away!

This isn't an argument - it's a discussion - and although even I will say that Olly's language was perhaps strong, I would point out that he is a qualified teacher (though not teaching at the moment by choice), so I do feel that Olly is likely better informed than any of us here.

I still stand by my assertion that educational standards are, generally, worse now than they were two decades ago, particularly in English. (But I said that earlier in the thread). I find it astonishing that English grammar forms just 5% of the English GCSE mark.

Discuss.

Ah, yes, I broke my teaching sword across my knee and beat it into a ploughshare. Or something.

Quote :

English grammar forms just 5% of the English GCSE mark.

This is actually a bit of a misconception. The exact thingys change all the time but this 5% has been around for years. The 5% actually applies to timed papers like the English Literature exams, and is either an extra 5% that can be awarded for high accuracy, or a 5% that can be knocked off for dross, varying according to exam board and the tides of time.

English Language and Literature Coursework is marked according to a number of categories, but accuracy and quality of expression form much more than 5%, you can rest assured.

Mum52 wrote:

Quote :

I was at school in the 1980s

You were obviously lucky, plenty weren't.

If you want to continue your argument with me, please do it in private. Thankyou.

Ah, OK, I was lucky. It's all my friends that are barely literate scum? Fantastic.

Ugh. 'Thank you' should be two words. Or is that my flawed education again?

I don't do private arguments. I think the paucity of your response demonstrates to everyone that you have little to say on the issue of any relevance. Thank you.

Okay, speaking from a teachers' point of view Andy, do you think that the level of expertise required to pass examinations has changed ? I ask this because when I was working as a governor of a school in the UK, they were discussing introducing different levels of examinations for different levels of ability and examinations which gave three possible answers, the student having to tick a box. I don't know if these were every brought in in the UK since I have not lived there for a very long time, but would be interested to know a teachers' point of view about what happens now.

..

Quote :

Probably but in the 80's I doubt you were still learning to read.

Well, I did learn very early but I was born in 1979 so...

Quote :

Okay, speaking from a teachers' point of view Andy, do you think that the level of expertise required to pass examinations has changed ? I ask this because when I was working as a governor of a school in the UK, they were discussing introducing different levels of examinations for different levels of ability and examinations which gave three possible answers, the student having to tick a box. I don't know if these were every brought in in the UK since I have not lived there for a very long time, but would be interested to know a teachers' point of view about what happens now.

There are different levels of examination for different levels of ability. Generally pupils are entered for Foundation, Intermediate and Higher papers for their GCSEs. It makes it easier to grade, really. The highest you can get on an intermediate paper is a C, that sort of thing.

The multiple-choice exams? Multiple choice questions are used in some subjects and in some exams, but they're not really a significant part of the assessment. You might see them in a French reading or listening exam where the pupil has processed some information and has to select the right answer from several options.

Examinations haven't changed in any serious way since the early 90s at least, which is when I became aware of them.

did you learn to put quotes on forums the right way around LOL

..

tis fixed now.

thats better. Thanks Drew.

Quote :

Examinations haven't changed in any serious way since the early 90s at least, which is when I became aware of them.

I was a governor in the early eighties and thats when the discussions were taking place, and it seemed that what they were after was more passes, which worried me, because I was concerned about the standard of education being hidden by changing the goal posts I suppose. Glad to hear the multiple choice thing is limited as I thought that if you were to hit and miss answer questions you did not know the answers to, it would actually be worse than having answered the question yourself if you get what I mean.