[Title] How to Properly Flout Prescriptivism
Your article is very
[Kicker] “When prescriptive grammar violates organic grammar, bad things can happen
during the reading process.”—Bradford R. Connaster (2004)
[Hook] Sometimes, as editors, it seems that people are always making the same grammatical
mistakes. Those mistakes are often the most difficult to correct, because the corrections may not
feel intuitive, or because correcting certain errors can lead to clunky constructions. According to
Bradford R. Connaster’s (2004) article, “Reconsidering Some Prescriptive Rules of Grammar
and Composition,” these struggles are due to discrepancies between what he calls prescriptive
grammar and organic grammar. Prescriptive grammar, Connaster explains, is the grammar we
most often use to make editorial decisions—the “rules” about language that we learn in school.
Organic grammar, on the other hand, is what we learn during language acquisition. Many
challenges in writing and editing come because “when prescriptive grammar violates organic
grammar, bad things can happen during the reading process.”
THE RESEARCH
Bradford R. Connaster (2004) presents several situations in which organic grammar may be
conflicting with prescriptive grammar. One of these situations is whether a decimal less than 1.0
but greater than -1.0 should be labeled with singular or plural units of measurement. To test this
rulequestion, Connaster presented sixteen engineers and technicians with math problems that
involved units of measurement. Some answers were between -1.0 and 1.0, and some were
outside that range. Connaster used the label his subjects provided with their answers to assess
whether organic grammar agrees with the prescriptive rule that decimals between -1.0 and 1.0
should be labeled with a singular unit.
The results of this test show that Connaster’s subjects almost always used the same type of label
(singular or plural) regardless of whether the answer lay between -1.0 and 1.0, showing that the
subjects’ organic grammar did not necessarily agree with the prescriptive rule.
THE IMPLICATIONS
Sometimes breaking prescriptive rules can enhance clarity; Connaster argues that the only way to
know when it’s a good idea to break prescriptive rules is to have a thorough understanding of
both prescriptive and organic grammar. He isn’t necessarily saying that all our prescriptive rules
should be disregarded, but rather that editors ought to consider more than just the traditional
rules while making edits. Connaster asserts that each manuscript should be edited with its
specific audience in mind, and that editors should respect the natural reading process and take
into account current research concerning that process. Remember, an editor’s ultimate goal is
clarity.
To learn more about when to choose to enforce a prescriptivist rule or follow what feels natural,
read the full article:
Bradford R. Connaster. 2004. “Reconsidering Some Prescriptive Rules of Grammar and
Composition.” Technical Communication 51, no. 2 (May): 264–75.
Commented [1]: Great job!
interesting, and you are a really good writer. You do a
good job of summing up Connaster's research in a way
that is engaging and easy to understand. My edits are
focused on the standardization of all of our articles,
specifically in the content of the hook and implications
sections.
In the new article summary package, you will find that
we use the author-date system found in Chicago 15
and that the new word count for the hook is 85 words
and the new word count for the research section is 175
words. My edits reflect those changes.
Commented [2]: I love your title, but I think it's a little
misleading. This title implies that your article is about
ways a person can fight against prescriptivists and
prescriptivism. Maybe we could change it to something
like "How to Choose between Prescriptivism and
Intuition" or "When to Follow Your Intuition instead of
Prescriptivist Rules."
Commented [3]: I love this quote!
Commented [4]: Your hook is interesting, but it doesn't
quite capture what we want the hook to do. In the
article summary package, it says that the hook should
be "a description of a problem or opportunity related to
editing, publishing, design, etc. into which the
implications of the source article will provide insight—
approximately 85 words." Your hook does present a
problem, so let's expand on it a little. Maybe we could
talk more about intuition, audience, audience reaction,
or author/editor relationships. We should also talk a
little bit about the implications (or possible
implications). Maybe you could bring up the question of
what should editors decide to do and how this article
will help them.
Commented [5]: This is great information, but the hook
doesn't seem like the right place for it. Can you try to
cut this down and put it into your research section?
Commented [6]: Good job on your research section! I
love it!
Commented [7]: Do you know what university he's
writing from? If so, will you include that and link it to the
university's homepage?
Commented [8]: Let's try to focus this section more on
the implications for editors and less on Connaster's
results. Maybe try making editors the main subjects of
the sentences. You can also use your hook for a guide:
do you answer or provide insights into the questions
you brought up in your hook? Another thing we could
explore is how audience affects an editor's choice to
enforce a prescriptivist rule.
FEATURE IMAGE BY (add name of photographer here, also in all caps)

[Info for the Web Team]

[Tags:] (Reconsidering Some Prescriptive Rules of Grammar and Composition, Bradford
R. Connaster, How to Properly Flout Prescriptivism, Sarah Jensen, Technical
Communication, reading ease, prescriptivism, grammar, orgainic grammar, intuition,
grammar rules)
[SEO keywords:] (prescriptivismediting) Commented [9]: What do you think about changing the
[SEO title tag (45-60 characters): ] (How to Properly Flout Prescriptivism) keyword to this? I feel like "prescriptivism" captures
more of what your article is about and distinguishes it
[SEO meta description (140-160 characters): ] “When prescriptive grammar violates organic from all our other articles.
grammar, bad things can happen during the reading process.”—Bradford R. Connaster (2004)