Bryson Response

Bryson Discussion

Summary

            Bill Bryson’s article “Good English and Bad” attempts to shed light on the fact that the rules of English Grammar are always circumstantial and intricately confusing. Bryson argues that many restrictions placed on the English language exist simply because scholars much before our time said they should. These restrictions make for a slower, more drawn out writing process, Bryson argues, one that dampens the joy of creative and researched thought.

Synthesis

            This article is similar to a decent amount of readings we’ve been assigned. It tackles the idea of independent movement within a language restriction. It also recognizes the inherent ridiculousness of certain writing constraints.

Pre-Reading

           

            Usually, I think of “good” English as well-written thought. It contains a strong vocabulary and an understanding of the essentials of grammar. “Bad” English usually doesn’t possess these pieces of criteria. I think I judge English by these two characteristics because they’re what makes a piece of writing smooth and cohesive. Undoubtedly bad grammar does possess the ability to distract the reader, and a dry, basic vocabulary isn’t entertaining.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

2)        Bryson claims that the English grammar structure’s complexity stems from it originating from Latin. The Latin language states that splitting an infinitive is impossible. So when the creators of the English language turned to Latin for guidance, they too decided that the splitting of an infinitive is impossible. However, Bryson argues that this is ridiculous logic. Grammarians in the past decided to not argue against this idea, and continued to shape English grammar around this concept, increasing its intricacy and lack of logic.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

2)        What Bryson is trying to say when he describes the English language as fluid and democratic is that the language is always changing. It is spoken and written differently in different settings. It has the ability to change whenever placed in a new context. The language is democratic in the sense that it doesn’t conform to the language dictations placed on it.

Meta Moment

            I consciously consider my sentence structure while writing. Usually I don’t pay much attention to my grammar. If I do, it’s likely about comma placement. I’ve learned most of these writing components in either school or while reading in my own time. They’ve been practiced enough that they usually linger in my peripheral now, if at all. I do think that knowing the parts of speech and writing can help you. Help you in a sense that your work will be taken more seriously by an audience. In terms of crafting thought, maybe; maybe not.

Personal Opinion

            I enjoyed this article, and not just for its comparative shortness. It was good to see an academic criticizing the ridiculous grammatical restrictions of the written language. I’ve spent far too much time wondering if my comma placement is incorrect or distracting. The acknowledgement of the monotonous, exhaustive qualities of English grammar is refreshing and much needed.