Terri Tims
Dr. Brent Lynn
Teaching College
Compostion
13 December 2013
Dawkins
on Punctuation
John Dawkins’ article “Teaching
Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool” proposes an alternative to the inflexible way
that grammar is currently taught.
Dawkins maintains that the best writers do not follow strict grammatical
rules, so why should teachers require students to adhere to such
limitations? Punctuation can be used to
enhance thinking and expression if more flexibility is provided in punctuation
choices.
Dawkins proposes that current
grammar instruction focuses more on what rules writers should not break. Those rules are based on the grammatical
elements of sentences, not on the meaning that the writer is attempting to
impart.
To simplify instruction and improve
rhetorical expression, Dawkins proposes that the basic unit in writing should
not be seen as the sentence, but instead, the independent clause. Punctuation of a sentence serves only to
delineate the relationships of independent clauses with one another and with
other sentence elements. Dawkins goes on
to explain that the different punctuation marks demonstrate varying degrees of
separation between clauses and other sentence elements. Dawkins’ illustration of these varying
degrees is through a hierarchy, demonstrating that end punctuation shows the
greatest degree; semicolons, colons, and dashes show a medium degree of
separation; the comma’s degree of separation is minimal; and no punctuation
shows that there is no separation (the sentence elements are connected). Through using punctuation in this way,
writers can more effectively signify the relationships they intend to exist
among sentence parts.
Dawkins furthers his simplified
system by establishing three sentence patterns for sentences with one
independent clause: independent clauses with another sentence element coming
before, after, and in the middle.
Dawkins’ rule for each arrangement specifies which punctuation marks are
acceptable. The rules are not
difficult. For sentences with elements
before the independent clause, a comma, dash, colon, or no punctuation is
acceptable. For independent clauses with
other sentence elements following, all punctuation marks are allowed. In the case of sentence elements that
interrupt an independent clause, either pairs of punctuation marks (commas,
dashes, and parentheses) or no punctuation are permissible.
Writers choose punctuation for
sentences based on what they intend the sentences to mean. As an author wants to emphasize the
relationships between or among different aspects of the sentence, he or she can
choose a more powerful or more separation-indicating punctuation mark from his
or her punctuation options. Dawkins
identifies the use of stronger punctuation marks to show separation “raising.” Alternatively, authors can also “lower,” by
not using punctuation where it would normally be expected. The omission of punctuation can result in a
quiet de-emphasis of separation.
Dawkins proposes the same hierarchy
of separation when punctuating sentences containing more than one independent
clause. Along with punctuation marks,
writers will also use coordinating conjunctions in these types of
sentences. Dawkins states that what is
currently seen as an error, the comma splice, is actually acceptable in that
the comma splice serves to show a connection between the two independent
clauses. Conversely, and in accordance
with Dawkins’ hierarchy of punctuation, the use of a coordinating conjunction
with no punctuation indicates that there is no separation between the
independent clauses.
When discussing teaching this
method, Dawkins states that the currently used method of punctuation stymies
students with negative rules and limits writers’ abilities to think more deeply
about the meaning of their own writing and their readers’ understanding of the
writing. Utilizing the hierarchy of
punctuation gives students more choice and encourages them to emphasize meaning
rather than follow grammatical formulas.
Using hierarchical punctuation accomplishes a great educational goal:
getting students to think more deeply about the meaning of their writing.
I find Dawkins’ article
intriguing. As I read the article, I
could envision how freedom from set and often, for students, incomprehensible
punctuation rules could bring more freedom and expression to so many
students. I agree with Dawkins that
basing punctuation on intended meaning rather than formulas based on sentence
structure would allow and require students to think more deeply about their own
writing. Students would focus on what
they truly mean to say and emphasize, rather than trying to remember obscure
grammar rules. Furthermore, students are
already recognizing that good writers do not necessarily follow established
grammar rules. Freedom from customary
grammar restrictions is becoming more and more common in published works, and
students wonder why their work is still graded on the old norms.
Unfortunately, I do not envision
change in teaching of grammar coming any time soon. Dawkins’ article was published in 1995, and I
have not seen any evidence of his technique in classrooms. Especially in today’s world of high stakes
educational testing, one right answer that can be bubbled in on a multiple
choice test is preferable to students being able to choose the punctuation that
best matches their intention. However,
in writing assessments in schools now and writing assessments that are to come,
I understand that logic and meaning is valued over grammatical ability. Perhaps in that arena some change may be
possible, but the ACT and SAT tests are still gateways to college
acceptance. Those tests require an
understanding of traditional grammar rules, and as long as that is the case and
composition teachers still deduct points for comma splices and run on
sentences, I do not see teachers being able to utilize Dawkins’ methods.
Works
Cited
Dawkins, John. “Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool.” College Composition and Communication.
46: 4 (1995): 533-548. JSTOR. 11 Dec. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment