Archive for July, 2010

Grammatical doorstop

Sunday, July 25th, 2010

Since I first read about the new Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, I’ve wanted a copy. The authors are Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum (with some chapters written by others), and it’s an 1,800-page doorstop of a book. Just lately, having had some small discussion with my proofreader about a hyphen he wanted to put in a place where I thought no hyphen ought to be, I decided this was the time, and was fortunate enough to find a used (barely opened, I think) copy for under $100 — list price is $205.

So it now resides on the little table by my reading & laptop chair, and I am slogging through it. When I finish with the chapter on verbs (only about 40 pages to go), nouns are next, at about 200 pages.

If that sounds like more than you really want to know about English grammar, you can read a summary chapter online. Pullum wrote on the linguistics blog Language Log, “The chapter we chose for making searchable online is a particularly useful one, in that it is largely free-standing: it is chapter 2, called “Syntactic overview”, in which Rodney Huddleston surveys the structure and terminology of the entire book, giving a capsule version of the analysis that is elaborated in the following chapters.”

If you’re still in thrall to your eighth-grade English teacher and her pet peeves, or you’re hanging on to the tattered copy of Strunk and White you had to buy for freshman comp, have a look, to see what linguists have been up to the last half-century or so. And if you are much troubled with peevologists, you can always use the book to swat them.

Michael Bellesiles: back in print, and back in trouble

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently published an essay by Michael Bellesiles, the disgraced former Emory professor and author of Arming America, who lost his job (and his Bancroft prize) after bloggers revealed extensive fabrications in the book, which purported to show that guns were rare in early American history.

Bellesiles is now an adjunct lecturer in history at Central Connecticut State University, and his essay is about a student in his class in military history whose brother, the student told Bellesiles, was shot by a sniper while serving in Iraq and died.

The essay raised red flags for many readers, not only because of Bellesiles’ record, but because they couldn’t verify the details (casualty records are public, and none matched the story the student told Bellesiles).

Eventually, The Chronicle checked the story and couldn’t verify it either (their account is now appended to the essay). Their conclusion: the story was made up, but by the student, not Bellesiles.

Picking up the idea that the student was the one at fault, Megan McArdle at the Atlantic writes, “Of course, maybe the student thought it would help him pass the class; in fact, maybe it did. Whatever the motivation, Bellesiles was taken in. Stupid, yes, but not exactly incomprehensible. You’d feel like a monstrous jerk if you added to the pain of someone whose brother had just died in Iraq by demanding that he prove he wasn’t lying.”

One of her commenters, JamieMc, said, “But this isn’t a scholarly article or journalism. It’s a personal essay. I’m not sure why anybody would expect him to research it. . . . My point is that the genre he’s working in here doesn’t really call for the kind of fact checking that some folks seem to be outraged that he didn’t do. He isn’t a journalist.”

JamieMc is wrong about the obligations of journalism. I replied:

Even “personal essays” are expected to be factually correct if they are submitted to, and appear in, a reputable and prestigious academic publication. At that point, such essays become journalism, whether or not the author can otherwise be described as a journalist. (Heck, blog posts are expected to be factually correct, however seldom that expectation is met.)

I edited many such pieces in nearly 20 years as a journalist, at several different daily newspapers, and you’d better believe it was part of my job to reject submissions that didn’t check out, and to display a healthy skepticism about which ones needed to be checked out. This essay invited skepticism because it was just too pat; and given who it came from (The Chronicle had been burned by Bellesiles before, you know), it demanded skepticism, if not instant rejection.

Any professional editor should have expected him to provide evidence that the story was essentially true.

I wrote a column on Bellesiles and Arming America in 2002, when Emory’s investigation was just gathering steam; since the paper I wrote it for closed in 2009, here’s a Google cache.

Bellesiles has a book coming out shortly; you have to wonder why any publisher would take such a chance.