My fellow Americans, we are faced with an alarming trend that has grave consequences for our nation. It is a trend that, if left unabated, will continue to hasten the degradation of the intellect of the country as a whole. As we worry about our children at home falling behind foreign students in the classroom, we are ignoring a serious problem among so called educated adults. The issue before us, ladies and gentlemen, is the abysmal grammar many people use. I have given much thought to this issue and how to rectify it. Many have tried to teach proper grammar but have failed and it is because they are focusing their attention in the wrong way. Adults have attempted unsuccessfully to teach proper grammar in America’s youth. Kids are taught the difference between “your” and “you’re,” “to” and “too,” but teachers do not impress upon children just how important good grammar is to be a useful member of society. Kids eventually do not take this grammar education as seriously as they should. Those kids grow up to be adults who make grammatical mistakes that should have been corrected a long time ago. This deficiency is most prevalent on social networking sites and in text messaging and it must be stopped immediately. It is with great pride that I announce I have formulated a solution to the grammar crisis we are faced with. It is a solution so foolproof that soon grammar enthusiasts will never again have to shake their head in dismay at people’s atrocious grammar. My proposal is called the Three Strike Plan and it applies to everyone that has graduated from high school. Anyone caught displaying a blatant disregard for proper grammar three times with be banished for life to a remote area with other language criminals. Vigilantism i... ... middle of paper ... ...unt, subject to the Supreme Court of Grammar’s discretion, as a violation. By allowing somebody two chances to fix their subpar grammar before being sent away, this proposal is a compassionate, ethical approach to solving this country’s grammar problems. Let it be known that nobody, myself nor anybody else tasked with enforcing the provisions of the Three Strike Plan, are in any way immune from prosecution. Anybody, from the president to a factory worker, are subject to the same rules. I am simply a man who cares deeply about the sad state of grammar in this country. I hope that someday this great nation will be free of the horror of terrible grammar and that a child will never have to see the word “to” ever used incorrectly. If you share that wonderful dream with me, the Three Strike Plan surely is the best method to reach the goal of universal proper grammar.
In the article “I won’t hire people who use poor grammar here’s why.” published in Harvard business review on managing yourself, Kyle Wiens argues that he have a zero approach which does not allow for any grammar mistake because it makes people stupid, and he believes that people who made mistake in grammar do not deserve to have a job. Further, he supports his thesis by stating that people who made an error in their writing will do error in their work and their life. In addition, he claims that language is constantly changing, but that does not ignore the importance of the grammar. Thus, this claim is supported by stating that good grammar is credibility. For example, programmers who
499) Immediately, the inappropriate use of his language distances me from continuing to read. The tone of this statement comes off as one-sided and stubborn. Rather than approaching the statement in a scholarly fact, Wiens down plays the intelligence of his work with an ignorant remark. Also, when Wiens mentioned stocking shelves requires grammar proficiency, which is not true in most cases. Again, he doesn’t have creditable information to back up his claim. To make his statement credible, Wiens should have included a study based off of various shelf stocking hiring processes. This hiring process could have included what specific skill set or educational background a company requires their employees to obtain. Additionally, this study could have been collaborated with top warehouse companies in the United States with quotes and numerical information. Wiens said, “I’ve found that people who make fewer mistakes on a grammar test also make fewer mistakes when they are doing something completely unrelated to writing- like stocking shelves or labeling parts.” (p. 499) Additionally, my best friend’s dad, Justin, is an immigrant from Cambodia who has trouble with English grammar. He immigrated to the United States on June of 1992. Justin has been working at an inventory warehouse for nearly nine years. Sine working at the warehouse, he learned to verbally communicate in English and is coherent to the language. However, he lacks an understanding of written English grammar. Although, for Justin’s specific job title, he doesn’t need to distinguish the difference between to and too. The relevance of this example displays the unimportance of the English grammar in certain jobs. Otherwise, Justin would have been terminated within the first few months on the job for continuing to make costly mistakes. Additionally, my second job was a sales associate at a boutique and the
In the article “ I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar. Here’s Why? By Kyle Wiens, explain why he would only hire people with great grammar for his companies. Wiens believes that grammar is something essential on a daily basis.“I have a zero tolerance approach to grammar mistakes that people look stupid”1 according to Kyle Wiens, owner of iFixit or Dozuki (online repair manual companies). To look professional on any kind of job and specially on important companies like his, people should be prepared for anything. A person with great grammar would be the best eligible for a job on any important company.
A Modest Proposal, written by Jonathan Swift, proposes both an outrageous idea and real solutions for helping Ireland manage their overpopulated country and eliminate poverty in 1729. Swift incorporates this idea to capture the attention of the people in Ireland and England, and prove to them they need to take action. He adopts a serious yet sarcastic tone in order to convince the citizens and readers their country needs change.
In Jonathan Swift’s satire, “A Modest Proposal”, Swift writes about the starving people of Ireland in the early 1700’s. He makes a wild and absurd proposal to help remedy the problems of overpopulation and poverty. Swift wants to make a political statement by using the “children” as satire to grasp the attention of the audience - the English people, the Irish politicians and the rich – and make them aware of the political, moral, and social problems. In “A Modest Proposal”, Swift’s arguments are presented effectively by using pathos (emotional appeal), ethos (ethics and values), and logos (logic reasoning and facts).
An Oxford University graduate, Jonathan Swift, in his article, A Modest Proposal, proposes a solution to Irelands growing poverty in the 18th century by proposing the selling and eating of innocent babies. Swift’s purpose is to state the benefits that the poor would gain from selling their one year old children to the wealthy to eat them. He takes on a concerning tone in order to convince the people of Ireland to consider and adopts his obscene plan.
Have you ever read a Modest Proposal? A Modest Proposal was written by Jonathan Swift in 1729. Swift’s purpose is to persuade the poor people of Ireland that babies and young kids are useless, and can be used for more things when they’re deceased versus alive. He says that they’re too expensive for their parents to take care of them and keep them nourished. Swift adopts a serious yet sarcastic tone in order to convince the poor people that babies and young children are useless. He talks about many issues when it comes to having babies and young kids.
In this irrelevant debate about the language form, we are deviating from the intention and purpose of education. To educate, means to make a child fully aware of his environment and open him to the act of thinking. As a well-informed society we should learn to appreciate the beauty of every English form and integrate it into standard form.
Simon emphases the significance of knowing, and using proper English, as well as keeping it alive. He proposes ways to sharpen the brain, which will result in a greater sense of discipline and memory. Simon also notes that everything we do is done with words, therefore, English is viewed as an essential to everyday life. The accurate use of rhetorical devices in this article are just one of many examples on how good English can help a person on a day to day basis. Despite Simon’s knowledge of proper English, the remainder of Americans must train themselves so that they may also achieve correct usage of the English
In the nineteenth century, Ireland was marked by extensive personal suffering. Civilians, predominantly the catholic lower and middle-classes, were having a hard time finding jobs, paying rent, feeding their children, as well as putting up with overpopulation which contributed to the overall growing problem of poverty. During this time of suffering, many began to question whether Britain acted as hastily and as effectively as they could have, as well as believing that centuries of British rule and/or political oppression was a fundamental cause of the famine (which originated from a potato crop failure). Jonathan Swift, a poor-boy who found his niche as a social critic/spokesman for Irish rights, after analyzing the possible causes, he concludes that England should not be the sole one to blame and therefore proposes a rather straightforward solution to Ireland’s evident predicament by insisting that the abundance of children of the poor to be used as a food supply.
In his essay, “Why Good English Is Good For You,” John Simon argues that speaking and writing English correctly is obligatory; the author suggests that he acknowledges the fact that language is constantly evolving, but Simon still believes that one should always use the correct “framework of accepted grammar,” while still “producing a style that is his very own” (31). Simon suggests that the argument that it is acceptable to use incorrect English since language is always changing is merely “an imperfect excuse for bad usage” (29).
Bagno asserts that if the grammar books do not account the innovative forms in them, the problem is entirely theirs not the populations. If purists chose to continue speaking in the traditional way, it is their right. Nobody is obliged to adopt innovations. “All we ask is that the other forms are also considerate correct”. (BAGNO, 2009).
Since the Industrial Revolution, technology has permeated and become an integral part of our everyday lives. In fact, a life without technology seems almost impossible to imagine. Almost everyone, around the globe, has access to technology in one form or another. Consequently this type of technology has become ingrained into our culture. Its roots are so deep that it is now peculiar to see someone without a smartphone than with one. Consequently, smartphones and the Internet have radically changed the manner in which we communicate and how we communicate with one another. Our speech has metamorphosed so much from that of our grandparents that it almost seems like a foreign language due to the incorporation of slang and “text talk.” With the sudden surge of email, blogs, and instant messaging that occurred within the last couple of decades, the impact that technology has on our linguistics has become more pronounced. Technology has helped to bridge the gap between people by allowing us to communicate as easily as we breathe. On this note, one would think that the dawn of the Era of Technology would give birth to a renaissance of the English language but, instead, the converse is taking place. With such widespread prevalence of technology such as smartphones and computers, the degradation of the English language is a problem now more than ever.
Gerngross, G & Puchta, H. (1992). Creative Grammar Practice: Getting Learners to Use Both Sides of the Brain. England: Longman Group UK Limited
Contrary to what the early detractors of the American English language used to say, American English is not an offensive offshoot of real English, but has over the centuries made its own mark in the world of language and communication, and is also poised at this juncture in human history to actually slowly become the main dialect of English the world over due to the America-centric communication and technological advances made over the past few decades. It is hoped that this essay has given but a glimpse of not only what American English has become, but what it can yet become should America remain a social, cultural, and technological leader in years to come.