Archive for February, 2008

Spoofreading

 A friend sent me this link: The Impotence of Proofreading. Delightful piece. Thanks PK. The blog on which this was posted is also well worth browsing.

Proofreading – that handmaiden of writing – reminds me  of some household chores, like putting the clothes out to dry, bringing them in and putting them away in wardrobes; drying the dishes and storing them.  Tiresome but unavoidable; if neglected, then all the effort put into the big chores comes to nought!

Ergo, proofread proofread proofread. Yes, even that shopping list.

No, Microsoft Word is not a good spellchecker, as this letter from a teacher to her students proves:

Deer stew dents 

To questions four you. Do you know how too use the spell checker on the computer? Can you sea sum spelling mistakes inn this? The spellchecker on my computer could knot fine any problems – awl my words were correct. The grammar checker all so said my grandma was perfect
Cheese 
Karen

The spellchecker on WordPress did not indicate any errors in the letter, either! So you see, there are things that machines simply cannot do.

 Thanks PK for this one, too.

And I do solemnly swear that I will henceforth proofread my mails to you carefully.

Comments off

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

(Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticsm, 1711)

I’m not the greatest fan of Pope. And of course critics have decidedly shown him his place in the general scheme of things literary. But his well-worn aphorism  about a little learning does seem frighteningly relevant today, when learning is instantaneous thanks to the Internet.

Everyone seems to know a little of everything; and if they don’t, they can find out very quickly. Take pop psychology. Suddenly everyone seems to know exactly what personality problems everybody else suffers from.  It’s a great comfort to see how enlightened (and verbose) even the kitchen-sink seems to be. 

However.

Are we seeing disorders rather than humanity in everyone? Or are we just too lazy to find out exactly what the words that roll so easily off the tongue really mean? 

Here’s what I think is a case in point.

 A neighbour lost the bag she keeps outside her door for the milkman to deposit milk packets in. And she’s quite sure that the culprit is the woman who works as domestic help in several neighbouring apartments.

Now, the episode itself, my neighbour’s suspicions and the woman’s guilt do not interest me.  What does is the word my neighbour used to describe the poor woman: Kleptomaniac.  Because, apparently, the woman was accused of stealing earlier too, although nothing was ever proved.

I wonder if my neighbour knows what the word means. It’s not too difficult to find out, thanks again to the Internet.

A kleptomaniac is someone who has a persistent, neurotic impulse to steal, especially without economic motive. (Merriam Webster )  Or someone with an irresistible tendency to theft; persons who are not tempted to it by necessitous circumstances; supposed by some to be a form of insanity. (OED)

And to take precision and accuracy to dizzying heights, the DSM IV Code (the most impressive Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychological Association, which you can access here or here) defines kleptomania as 

the failure to resist impulses to steal things that are not needed for either personal use or for their monetary value.

(Emphasis mine.)

In all three definitions the act is defined as not being prompted by economic motives or actual need. Now, you don’t need Nobel-prize winning intelligence to deduce that the poor woman must have stolen out of sheer need. Not because she was insane.

I’m sure it must be a disorder in itself to be labelling poverty and wretchedness kleptomania. And no, I don’t know the name of the disorder! 

I wonder how much more of another person’s humanity we’d be able to see if we were not so eager to label.

Wikipedia notes, in its entry on the Pope aphorism (in my title) that this line is often misquoted as “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” thus reinforcing the aptness of this very admonition, as the misquote betrays a certain want of learning.

Considering that Wikipedia itself is knowledge/learning of a dubious nature,  this is irony of the Chinese boxes variety! 

Comments off

Whatchamacallit

The only explanation I offer for the title of this post is that I can’t think of anything else!  

Writing is not easy. And I don’t mean just titles. Writing five sentences on nothing in particular can be tough, too. This was an exercise I gave my students in one of their introductory syntax classes for the semester. Saves me the trouble of hunting up examples for syntactic analysis, of course! But the idea behind the exercise was to get real sentences for analysis rather than text-book ones.

I’d have thought writing five English sentences would be as easy as ABC for postgradute students of English. Well, not quite! 

Some of them said the difficulty was due to the self-consciousness that the exercise induced. We don’t usually make up sentences that have no specific communicative or expressive purpose.  Like the toy sentences in grammar books: John is a boy. She is a girl. Seriously, does anyone ever say such things in real-life conversations?!

 The exercise reinforced my fascination for the creativity and ease with which we  string words together into sentences. All the time. Spontaneously. Without pausing to ‘construct’ them in our minds! It’s almost as if we’re programmed.

 Oh, that reminds me.

The other day I had to fill out a form on-line. After I hit the Submit button, the machine gave me this message: ”We’re not convinced you’re human . . . ” And went on to describe how I could ‘prove’ my human-ness – by typing a word inside a box exactly as it was displayed. You know, the kind one often gets when creating e-mail IDs.

It set me thinking. How would I prove to a machine that I’m human? I mean, just how is a machine even qualified to judge my human-ness? Gave me the goosebumps, it did.

The seduction of the machine is nowhere more evident than when it breaks down. Like yesterday when, thanks to the Internet outage, the electronic catalogue in our university library was inaccessible; and since, in their zeal to appear modern and high-tech, the library had stowed away their manual catalogue, I was reduced to rummaging painstakingly through the bookshelves.

I love it though – not the dust on my hands and face, but the browsing. Because that’s when you stumble upon some gems. And that’s how I found Mike Sharples’ How We Write: Writing As Creative Design: a fascinating study of the mental processes involved in writing.  (Sigh. The disbelief is quite uncalled for. Condemned, as I am, to read and mark student writing for a living, I cannot help but find such books interesting.) 

Sharples draws attention to the rather mechanistic metaphors that we use in talking of the writing process:

The hydraulic metaphors – well up, flow, dry up;

The pyrotechnic metaphors – fire the imagination, burning with ideas;

The exploration metaphors - searching for ideas, finding the right phrase;

The bodily function metaphors - writer’s block.

But the last word on metaphors of writing is Freud’s: “Since writing entails making liquid flow out of a tube onto a piece of white paper, it sometimes assumes the significance of copulation.”

Hmmm. Where does that leave one half of humanity, I wonder? The female half?

And to wind up, here’s an absolutely hilarious piece by Dennis Baron on the hazards of handwriting. And you thought computers and e-mail had made handwriting a thing of the past? Ha!

Comments off

The return of Macaulay

“What am I doing?” I sometimes wonder after a particularly trying day at work. My Significant Other wonders, too, for he thinks we government wallahs are lazy good-for-nothings. “It’s a rhetorical question,” I almost retort and then think the better of it. Rhetorical questions are usually preludes to major marital spats. 

So let me cut a vein open here, instead.

January – March is the official seminar season at my workplace (a university). And last week there were several seminars, jostling for attention and attendance.

A seminar, you must understand, is performative academics. Where participants perform: coffee/tea-drinking (the virgule because one really doesn’t know whether it’s coffee or tea one is drinking, unless told), bag-distributing, file-clutching, paper-rustling, mutual back-scratching, name and/or theory dropping(s)   . . . 

As for gyaan. . . I don’t know. It eludes me at any rate.

I tossed a coin to decide which one to attend and ended up with a multi-lingual poetry seminar. The kind that is a multi-lingual feast of eloquence on the big questions. Life. Love. Emotion. Perspectives. Nuances. Linguistic jugglery.  

A perfect recipe for a headache, which, sure enough, soon began to make itself felt. I slunk out, throwing an apologetic look at the academic-masquerading-as-poet on the dais.

Back home, I quietly contemplated the pleasures of south Indian filter coffee, specially its curative effects on headaches triggered by poetry. But the pleasure was short-lived. Some days, I tell you, it’s just one big conspiracy working against you. And the culprit that day was the woman who disposes of domestic garbage. She simply didn’t turn up. Instead, she sent her two little boys - not more than 6 or 7 years, knee-high, grime-covered. They should have been in school like my son, my stricken inner voice screamed.

I thought about the multi-lingual poetry seminar again. So many people flown in. So much power consumed. So many trees felled. And so many paraphrases of the same things aired. Repeatedly. While a stone’s throw away, children collected trash instead of learning about the rich linguistic and literary traditions of their country.

And what do I do about it? Oh I go ecstatic teaching Saussure and Chomsky to an indifferent postgraduate class. Irrelevance raised to the power of infinity. I’m guilty as hell, too.

But every now and then I ask myself: what am I doing? And wonder about the futility of teaching Saussure and Chomsky to young people who probably just want to learn the kind of English that will land them a plum “6-figure job at an MNC”.

The gulf yawning between need and supply in English language skills is so vast it seems scurrilous and obscene even to be writing about it.

I wondered idly – what would help improve the lives of the garbage disposer and her two little boys? A knowledge of English? Or a knowledge of children’s rights and of the hazards of handling garbage with unprotected hands and faces?

Macaulay would have been justly proud to see the business of English in India today. In his infamous minute on education more than a century ago, he extolled the virtues of teaching English to a class of Indians who would then assist the British in running the country. In the process, of course, the natives would become civilized brown sahibs.

It appears that his lesson has been well learned. The wheel has come full circle. Today money is pumped into training our young men and women to write and speak in English the way Western businesses and customers want. They will, then, become Westernized enough to want, and salaried enough to be able to afford, the products of these Western businesses, which flood our markets today.

Thomas Babington Macaulay, you must be sitting bolt upright in your grave and grinning from ear to ear.

Comments off