The Quizbowl Resource Center

I'm really into grammar, and I was just wondering...is anyone else? Is there anyone out there who looks forward to KMO for the grammar questions? Does anyone think there should be more grammar and lit questions in regular play? Just curious.

No.

I'm a big grammar fan, but I find it hard to really ask a challenging question about grammar, especially if you want a pyramidal question.

God help us. While grammar is a very commonly tested feature on standardized tests, I do NOT enjoy having it up as quiz bowl material... especially when some question writers don't know much grammar in the first place.

There are only so many ways to write questions on subject-verb disagreements, dangling participles, and intransitive verbs...

Like calculation questions, leave it on handouts. Don't subject the moderators to reading butchered sentences with improper grammar. We beg you.

Unfortunately, the answer is the subjunctive.

alkrav112 wrote:I'm a big grammar fan, but I find it hard to really ask a challenging question about grammar, especially if you want a pyramidal question.

I've heard a pyramidal question on "is".

I wrote that question. It's probably not my worst, either.

"It can be defined as something factual, empirical, actually the case, or spatiotemporal. Name this two-letter word that confused Bill Clinton which can also be defined as the present third person singular form of to be."

I include one Language Arts question per round in my tournament, but most of them are vocabulary questions. Somebody attending my tournament should expect to hear two or three grammar questions out of 140 total. There are no 'What's wrong with this sentence' questions because there are only about four possible answers you can have to such questions when they are read out loud.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, none of my questions are truly grammar questions. I should have said expect to hear two or three literary terms questions. Also, the above question may be my worst.

I just find it disturbing how little most people care about grammar.

Thompson wrote:I just find it disturbing how little most people care about grammar.

I think you're correct in the sense that people need to pay more attention to proper style, etc., in writing -- such as ensuring clarity in your antecedents and modifiers and all that jazz. "I saw a bear walking down the street in my pajamas" sort of stuff. It helps (as ImmaculateDeception has pointed out elsewhere recently) if we can all speak and understand the same language.

I think you're wrong, though, if you're talking about most grammar rules. I'll put a preposition wherever I want to. (If it makes sense, of course.) There is no objective reason for rules that don't make things clearer or easier to understand.

And finally, and most importantly here, I also disagree if you're advocating more grammar in a quiz bowl context. Dr. Chuck's post gets my gold star for this category, and I don't think there's much else to say. I see very little value in most grammar questions at the college or high school level, and only slightly more at lower levels (and then, only because there's less "stuff" to ask), so consider me one vote against including them at all, even if I think it (good writing more than grammar) is an important practical subject in many ways.

At the college level, actually, grammar questions can be interesting, since grammar is one of the better subsections of linguistics (and, indeed, the social sciences in general) to ask about. However, these have no resemblance to what a high schooler would mean by "grammar questions." I find these latter repugnant in the highest, usually: they do crop-up in college from time to time (NAQT wrote an "is" question once; why they did so is quite beyond me.)

MaS

ImmaculateDeception wrote:At the college level, actually, grammar questions can be interesting, since grammar is one of the better subsections of linguistics

As I recall from playing for the ABT, the questions could open up, and you could write some very good questions on grammar.

It is trickier at the high school level, but I would bet that you could make some even more interesting questions if you wrote foreign language questions. At least in Illinois, there has been a lot of resistance to that because many schools in an unnamed part of the state do not offer foreign languages as an elective option. I actually found the PAC foreign language questions to be a bit of fresh air (maybe some states out there do it much better).

Tegan wrote:

ImmaculateDeception wrote:At the college level, actually, grammar questions can be interesting, since grammar is one of the better subsections of linguistics

As I recall from playing for the ABT, the questions could open up, and you could write some very good questions on grammar.

It is trickier at the high school level, but I would bet that you could make some even more interesting questions if you wrote foreign language questions. At least in Illinois, there has been a lot of resistance to that because many schools in an unnamed part of the state do not offer foreign languages as an elective option. I actually found the PAC foreign language questions to be a bit of fresh air (maybe some states out there do it much better).

But at what difficulty should the questions be? I remember at one tournament, the bonus gave days of the week and you translated to spanish. For anyone who takes spanish, this is the easiest 20 points you will ever see. Now, should the challenge be someone on your team has to know spanish, or should the challenge be in the question, and assume someone knows spanish?

Trevkeeper wrote: But at what difficulty should the questions be?

While I try to favor more challenging and more original questions, I would say that it might depend. I for one would not consider translation a part of "grammar" (though I suppose it could).

On the other hand, this would be a great use of a hand out.....you could offer Spanish and French (and others depending on the situation), and you could ask grammar related questions based on foreign languages (spot the error, insert the proper verb, conjugated correctly, etc). Depending on how often foreign language is utilized, I think even more basic questions like that would be at least fresh, if not offering at least a little challenge.

For a twist, you could write grammar questions in one language (Spanish/French), and have players give the answer in another (English), thus incorporating translation as another layer of difficulty to the question (the only problem is, you can get bogged down into issues similar to computations where you need to be careful and cover all potential answers (formal vs. colloquial).

NoahMinkCHS wrote:I think you're wrong, though, if you're talking about most grammar rules. I'll put a preposition wherever I want to. (If it makes sense, of course.) There is no objective reason for rules that don't make things clearer or easier to understand.

I think in regard to posting, we were simply saying that posts should at least follow common rules that make them easily readable and understandable. This would include separation if ideas by commas and periods where appropriate, spelling out words, and not using crazy symbols rather than letters just because you think it's cool.

I couldn't agree more about prepositions. In fact, in normal conversation, this "rule" about not placing a preposition at the end of the sentence is regularly disregarded. Furthermore, this disregard seems to provide no hindrance to the understandability of the sentence.

"This is something up with which I shall not put". -- Winston Churchill

Howard, the focus of this thread is turning to grammar in qb. Another main problem with foreign language in qb is the ability (or lack thereof) for the moderator to somewhat read it correctly. As for the choice of language, pretty much every FL bonus i've heard has been swept, and the fact that the one student on our team who took German was out cost us a match at a state tournament. For grammar bonuses, the best ones (if any are good) that I have heard are where you are supposed to conjugate the verb, i.e. first person, active voice, future perfect of break, or something like that.

My main concern is that grammar is dieing everywhere you turn. I belong to an short story sharing board, and posts there (where everyone is literarily inclined in some way or another) can be incredibly painful to read.

I recently edited the first paragraph of a story, correcting only large and obvious mistakes that seriously disrupted the readers' attention. My corrections took three fourths of a page when typed. FOR THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.

You see what I mean? Language is quickly meeting it's untimely demise. Is this a bad thing or a good thing? On the one hand, language is one of the only things separating us from the "lower" animals at large. Losing it would set us back to caveman days. Is this a bad thing? Would we be happier communicating in grunts in a world where man can not kill hundreds of thousands of other with the push of a button? Or would we rather live in communities where people can avoid death of cold or flu?

Should we uphold the structures and modes of speech? Should we continue attempting to communicate coherently?

Thompson wrote:My main concern is that grammar is dieing everywhere you turn. I belong to an short story sharing board, and posts there (where everyone is literarily inclined in some way or another) can be incredibly painful to read.

Funny stuff.

Caught another error. - D

Thompson wrote:You see what I mean? Language is quickly meeting it's untimely demise.

Yes, I see what you mean. Even you language zealots are afflicted.

Dan Greenstein wrote:

Thompson wrote:You see what I mean? Language is quickly meeting it's untimely demise.

Yes, I see what you mean. Even you language zealots are afflicted.

It's v. its is one of very few things I'm a language zealot about. Otherwise, keep in mind that for one thing, people don't generally edit themselves on the internet. And just because English speakers have a tendency to ignore arbitrary limits set on sentence structure by the intelligentsia of centuries ago, back when Latin was the language of the smart and everyone thought English should be like Latin, even though they're wildly dissimilar, doesn't mean language itself is dying. Humans have an inborn language faculty, and just because people don't care to learn things like the difference between and independent and dependent clause or what have you doesn't mean Western civilization is doomed. Native speakers of any language don't automatically learn grammar, and it's really not worth it to spend school time teaching grammar (IMO). Language evolves, from proto-Indo-European to Anglo-Saxon to middle English to modern English to 1337, and I guarantee you that the general populace has rarely actually understood the intricacies of grammar, which are subjective anyway. So chi11, d00d. [/url]

I am impressed. Few others would have noticed these "errors." This is very reassuring. Thank you.

Proper language is going out the window anyway. People are texting each other, and writing skills are pretty pitiful. Thank goodness we don't ask for essays in quiz bowl.

We should.

Oh please don't. Let's keep essays with the SAT and ACT.

Native speakers of any language don't automatically learn grammar, and it's really not worth it to spend school time teaching grammar (IMO). Language evolves, from proto-Indo-European to Anglo-Saxon to middle English to modern English to 1337, and I guarantee you that the general populace has rarely actually understood the intricacies of grammar, which are subjective anyway.

Yes, native speakers of a language automatically learn grammar if they are regularly exposed to other speakers of that language in infancy and early childhood. That is, they learn an accepted system of rules which allows communication.

Grammar professors don't make the rules, they describe the rules. The general populace understands the intricacies of grammar far better and more naturally than do grammar Nazis.

rcline wrote:...The general populace understands the intricacies of grammar far better and more naturally than do grammar Nazis.

How can that possibly be when it is exceedingly likely that any two given members of the general populace would be at great odds with one another about even the most basic grammatical rules? In fact, what does "the general populace" understanding something even mean?

MaS

How can that possibly be when it is exceedingly likely that any two given members of the general populace would be at great odds with one another about even the most basic grammatical rules? In fact, what does "the general populace" understanding something even mean?

Because your average Joe/Jane can understand another native speaker despite differences in their own internal grammar. Grammar is flexible enough to allow for differences. People aren't, as a rule, "at great odds" with each other over grammar rules...they just think "he's a hick" or "she's a snob," etc.

Take, for instance, the word "ain't". We all know what it means, especially in context:

"He ain't a Quiz Bowl player" (isn't)

"I ain't no stinking Commie" (am not) (we even understand what the double negative means!)

"We ain't going to the party" (aren't)

From a descriptive grammar point of view, "ain't" is a valid word because it successfully transmits meaning. From a prescriptive grammar viewpoint, "ain't" ain't standard and should be corrected.

As for your second question, it is necessary for the general populace to understand grammar for communication to be possible.

rcline wrote:...Because your average Joe/Jane can understand another native speaker despite differences in their own internal grammar. Grammar is flexible enough to allow for differences. People aren't, as a rule, "at great odds" with each other over grammar rules...they just think "he's a hick" or "she's a snob," etc.

Take, for instance, the word "ain't". We all know what it means, especially in context:

"He ain't a Quiz Bowl player" (isn't)

"I ain't no stinking Commie" (am not) (we even understand what the double negative means!)

"We ain't going to the party" (aren't)

From a descriptive grammar point of view, "ain't" is a valid word because it successfully transmits meaning. From a prescriptive grammar viewpoint, "ain't" ain't standard and should be corrected.

(Warning: long. Short version: That ain't not right!)

Nonsense. The entire purpose of proscribing a grammar is in the fact that people using grammars that they've made-up (by whatever means) will and, indeed, frequently do have difficulties communicating with others who ostensibly speak the same language that they do; a situation that you erroneously claim does not occur or occurs only to a negligible extent. I am confident that if you make a few observations, you will find that people using what they consider their own natural grammar will have problems communicating with one another: one need look no further than the average quizbowl tournament containing teams from different geographical regions (or, indeed, than this message board.) I am further confident that, if one could successfully teach a number of people a given grammar, these failures to communicate due to incompatible natural grammars would not arise among them, except due to easily amenable error. The natural language fallacy cannot save your argument from those facts.
Also, the issue of "ain't" is not purely grammatical. It has to do with the meaning of a word, not necessarily its usage (some contend that it means nothing, others that it means more or less what you said it means.) However, the issue of a double negative is grammatical through and through. In point of fact, one cannot properly understand what the given sentence means because its literal meaning is at odds with what you clearly intend it to mean. In a real-life situation, where the speaker's intent is not generally clear, one is left to guess the meaning of such a sentence. I, for one, cannot see how that is clear or effective communication.
I am reminded a recent discussion with a student of mine, who came to my office claiming that "Nobody understands the professor!" I delivered a short rebut citing the opinions of several of his colleagues in the class 26 students who I knew to be well satisfied with that professor's lecture style, upon hearing which the student informed me that he had understood "only some people" by "nobody" and, further, that "Nobody means nobody when they say nobody." I had to excuse myself to overcome a short fit of laughter.

rcline wrote:As for your second question, it is necessary for the general populace to understand grammar for communication to be possible.

To reiterate, then, your argument rests upon the hypothesis that everyone finds their communications with other speakers of their language satisfactory in general; that everyone is pretty well satisfied and makes their ideas clear in the mean. I don't see how you can claim that as a first principle or, really, as a principle of any kind, as I don't think it's true. It looks to me like there are a large number of understandability issues among speakers of English and that some of these would be ameliorated if all those speakers used the same grammar.
However, even were it the case that everyone is mutually comprehensible in the mean, I don't believe that this entails an understanding of grammar by everyone. The ability to use something (some physical object, or some set of rules as a grammar is) generally does not necessitate an understanding of that thing in the proper sense: nor is the converse true. You may argue that this is mere semantics, but bear in mind that your argument will be a contribution to a debate about grammar that you started.

MaS

Yes, native speakers of a language automatically learn grammar if they are regularly exposed to other speakers of that language in infancy and early childhood.

People naturally learn how to speak a language, and they internalize a natural method, but they are not automatically aware of the things grammar prescriptivists demand that we do because that's the way they did it in Latin, that's how whoever wrote the style guide has always done it, or they just made it up. Your average person doesn't understand things like: (culled from Wikipedia)
--Restrictive clauses
--Null comparative
--Split infinitives (someone in the 19th century randomly decided these were bad.)
The only people who slavishly follow the instructions of grammar prescriptivists are writing to a style guide. I agree with rcline that on average, native speakers of a language do not have syntax-based communication issues. Problems crop up more frequently with semantics and phonology. It's my belief that anyone who reads enough will be able to write well enough to not have to worry about the details of descriptive grammar. Describing a grammar may be interesting, but is certainly not a worthwhile aspect of primary education beyond what is required to write coherently. A few viewings of Schoolhouse Rock's Grammar Rock! video pretty much covers what elementary students need to bother learning about grammar. As is usual when I rant, I've run out of steam without really making a point, so anyone can pick this up from here.

The point of grammar is to standardize and simplify the rules by which people speak in order to make the most sense to the most people.

This does not mean that it is necessary for everyone in this God-forsaken country to learn the more complex aspects of this mutilated belle we call "American." What it does mean is that people should be aware of the rules which govern clear and concise speech.

Everyone in America should be able to realize that "ain't no" does not mean "am not" and that there are reasons for not ending a sentence with a preposition. They should realize that language isn't some cold, austere edifice looming high into the clouds of mystification. She is, rather, a kind and frail old grandmother, always ready with a rewarding tray of cookies and a smile when we cross out the commas around our restrictive appositives and flinch when someone writes "their" for "there."

Grammar is simplification made overtly complicated by the fascist heirarchal pigs of contemporary mental society.

Thompson wrote:Everyone in America should be able to realize that "ain't no" does not mean "am not" and that there are reasons for not ending a sentence with a preposition.

"Am not" is exactly what "ain't no" means and I don't think anyone has a problem understanding that. Some sentences make perfect sense with prepositions at the end.

Nonsense. The entire purpose of proscribing a grammar is in the fact that people using grammars that they've made-up (by whatever means) will and, indeed, frequently do have difficulties communicating with others who ostensibly speak the same language that they do; a situation that you erroneously claim does not occur or occurs only to a negligible extent.

Well, to the deconstructivist extent that all language is flawed, certainly, people have trouble communicating. But by and large the problem is with language as a form of communication in general and not with failure to understand the grammar of the specific language in question.

Another communication gap occurs when people differ in wit. Sarcasm, double entendres, puns, and other verbal tricks might impart more meaning to some than to others, leading to misunderstandings.

Often, people also willfully "misunderstand," but that certainly can't be blamed on language.

I stand by my statement that people who speak the same language generally have remarkably little trouble understanding each others' grammar. As you pointed out with my "ain't" example, the trouble, if it occurs, is with vocabulary - slang, regionalisms, and the like. Heck, you're from Illinois, I'm from Texas. I understand what you're saying just fine, even if I don't agree with you.

However, the issue of a double negative is grammatical through and through. In point of fact, one cannot properly understand what the given sentence means because its literal meaning is at odds with what you clearly intend it to mean.

Do you realize what you said here? "...its literal meaning is at odds with what you clearly intend it to mean." If it's clear what I intend it to mean, then it is successful communication, is it not? What difference does literal meaning make? We use nonliteral language all the time and the meaning is clear. Even your own usage "clearly intend it to mean" is at odds with its own literal meaning...my meaning is not literally transparent, it's metaphorically transparent.

In a real-life situation, where the speaker's intent is not generally clear, one is left to guess the meaning of such a sentence. I, for one, cannot see how that is clear or effective communication.

No, the hearer is not left to guess the meaning. Such usages have been incorporated into our grammar now. Perhaps a non-native listener might have to guess, but native speakers have heard their fill of double negatives and understand them as well as the standard single negative.

The ability to use something (some physical object, or some set of rules as a grammar is) generally does not necessitate an understanding of that thing in the proper sense: nor is the converse true.

This is more a matter of conscious or unconscious underatanding. Certainly in order to use a language, one must understand at some level how it works. If you compare apples to apples, the same is true of, say, computer use:

A Microsoft Word user has to have some understanding of the rules of using the program - not necessarily how the computer code works or how the computer itself operates.

In language terms, a language user has an understanding of the rules of using the language, not an understanding of the inherent psychology or physiology behind human speech or language, or how a human body works.