Motives for metaphor Book

Rei Noguchi’s Grammar and the Teaching of Writing was once again my favorite reading selection for the week. I have never considered myself interested in the subject of grammar; however I had no idea the depth of connection grammar has to current social issues. In Noguchi’s second chapter, he answers the question that has been burning on my mind – what about this paradox of teaching grammar that conforms to elitist, White, male, standardized English? Noguchi’s explanation made sense to me, yet I still question certain parts of it. Noguchi reasons that teaching students to utilize Standard English is like teaching students to dress properly for certain occasions. You wouldn’t want to show up to a wedding in a swim suit and beach gear, just like you wouldn’t want to submit writing that uses other forms of English, or contains grammatical errors, to a teacher or employer. I completely agree with this rationalization of Noguchi’s. I want to empower my students by teaching them the conventions of professional, standard, academic English. Noguchi writes that “if people in power unfairly make it difficult for certain social groups to climb the socioeconomic ladder, we should not give these perpetrators an opportunity to hide the more underlying causes by letting them use nonstandard features of writing as the discriminating factor” (29). I agree with Noguchi that teaching our students these “social consequences” of their grammar is absolutely vital to create a fair chance for them to succeed in the business professional world. However, it still seems so unfair that businesses and powerful professionals are able to discriminate in this way, when it seems like there are so many different kinds of Englishes that are currently being spoken in the United States. With overcrowded classrooms, a lack of sufficient resources, and the problem of illiteracy in California schools, teachers are expected to be low-paid miracle workers. It is so unfair that society holds on to one standard, while lawmakers, government, local leaders, community members, and others neglect to provide the support necessary to create the professionals that speak the Standard English they need and are looking for.
Yet Noguchi is ever practical, and reminds his readers that while this is unfair, and while “in an ideal world, all writers would know exactly how readers will perceive their writing, and all readers would know how to judge writing quality fairly … Unfortunately … it is not an ideal world” (30). Noguchi recognizes the “dilemma” that faces teachers, yet he strongly opposes “[risking] making too many of our present students into sacrificial lambs” (30). I have found it helpful to think of Freire in pondering this dilemma. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire writes that “education as the practice of freedom – as opposed to education as the practice of domination – denies that man is abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world; it also denies that the world exists as a reality apart from men. Authentic reflection considers neither abstract man nor the world without men, but men in their relations with the world” (69). Rereading this piece of Freire helped me to realize that I don’t have to look at teaching as creating and perpetuating conformity – I can view “education as the practice of freedom;” I can hopefully unveil for my students these unfair standards and discriminations that exist in our world. This excerpt from Freire explains to me why it is so important to not teach grammar as an abstract concept. Rather, utilizing the concepts presented in Noguchi’s text, I can clarify the conventions of grammar for my students and present these conventions in a way that students will be able to apply them to their writing. In this way, they can see themselves and the work they do in the classroom in “[relation] with the world” (69). Drawing upon Noguchi and Freire, I have a better idea of the purpose behind my goals of teaching, and how I want to go about accomplishing those goals.