Interview with Dr. David Mulroy: Author of The War Against Grammar

David Mulroy
Professor of Classics
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
E-mail: dmulroy@csd.uwm.edu

This month, we bring you an insightful interview with Dr. David Mulroy, whose upcoming book, The War Against Grammar, will be published on August 28, 2003 by Heinemann/Boynton-Cook. (paper, 125 pages).

Dr. Mulroy is professor of Classics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. In addition to The War Against Grammar, he has authored three translations of ancient Greek and Latin poetry as well as a number of scholarly and general interest essays. He received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford in 1971 and taught at Princeton (1968-73). He is on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars and president of its Wisconsin affiliate, the Wisconsin Association of Scholars.

Join us as we discuss his new book, the Classics, grammar instruction, and the state of higher education.

AEE: Hello, Dr. Mulroy. Thanks for agreeing to speak with us about your upcoming book, The War Against Grammar, the classics, and education.
DM: The pleasure is mine. There isn't much that I would rather talk about.

When did you first get the idea to write The War Against Grammar?
In my own teaching, I was shocked to discover that college students generally did not know the eight parts of speech. When Wisconsin was adopting new academic standards, I went to a public meeting to suggest that high school graduates should be able to distinguish between nouns and verbs, for example. To my amazement, I found that this idea ran contrary to conventional wisdom in schools of education. To tell you the truth, as an old high school debater, I found the issue irresistible. I couldn't believe that there were "experts" aligned on the opposite side.

Did you have trouble selling the idea of TWAG to a publisher?
No. I was lucky. I published a short essay entitled "The War Against Grammar" [also available at http://nweb.pct.edu/homepage/staff/evavra/kiss/Guest/E0001.htm] in a Wisconsin think tank magazine, Wisconsin Interest. It really didn't say much more than, you know, school kids really ought to learn the parts of speech. Given the kind of article it was, it elicited a huge a mount of favorable feedback. In fact, a group of French academics published a synopsis of it in French on their website. All of this emboldened me to write a book-length version of my argument. In the course of my research, I discovered a group of English teachers, the Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar, which champions the teaching of grammar and was very enthusiastic about my project. Finally, I got a colleague interested who edits a series for Heinemann/Boynton-Cook. He went to bat for the book, assisted by an endorsement from one of the founders of ATEG. He says that the book was viewed with alarm in some circles at Boynton-Cook because it does fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but from my own personal point of view, it was the easiest book to get published of the four that I have been involved with.

Let's discuss some specifics about the "Big G." You have called your knowledge of grammar "by far [your] most prized intellectual possession." Can you explain what you mean?
I have always felt that in any field, if you understand the most basic fundamentals, then you can really soar and that typically when people have a hard time succeeding it is because they have skipped over something very basic. Here in Wisconsin, people used to quote Vince Lombardi all the time to the effect that the way to succeed at football was by blocking and tackling correctly. To me that is a very wise saying. My application is that grammar is the most basic knowledge in the intellectual sphere. Even to think a truth in the privacy of your own mind, you have to construct a sentence with a subject and a predicate. Grammar gives you an understanding of the most fundamental ground rules of thought. It brings clarity to everything else. I'm certainly not a genius, but I do feel that I can eventually understand anything that is written in English--or another language that I've learned to read --with complete lucidity because I have a grasp of the basic ground rules of the way that meaning is created, i.e., grammar.

In TWAG, you link educational quality with the study of grammar. How can learning what seems like a small and troublesome part of language sustain or undermine the whole of education?
In the way that I have just suggested. Understanding grammar means that you can arrive at a complete and perfectly lucid understanding of the literal meaning of any text. When that is missing, people are reduced to free-associating with words. You can't really come to grips with issues. In TWAG, I give some shocking examples of college students trying and failing to paraphrase the meaning the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. It is a long, complex sentence. If you don't understand its grammatical structure, you are bound to get lost. One student actually summed it up as meaning that "basically life goes on"!

You've stated, "Education serves no more important purpose than developing the capacity to make accurate determinant judgments, which are essential to every practical endeavor." How can learning grammar foster this ability?
I've wavered between referring to "determinant" judgments and "determinate" ones and have ended up with "determinate." They are judgments where you have to follow a set procedure or employ given definitions and end up with an answer that will be unambiguously either right or wrong. Mathematical problems call for determinate judgments. Other judgments are reflective. One is asked essentially how he or she feels about something. The answers may be dull and wrongheaded or absolutely brilliant, but what they have in common is that they are creative, they don't follow set rules. The hard and irreplaceable part of education is the training that it gives in making determinate judgments. In English, that primarily means the ability to analyze sentences grammatically, e.g., identifying the subject, verb, etc. I think that when you completely eliminate determinate judgments from a field, it loses its rigor and its challenge. Eventually, students just get bored with subjects in which nobody is ever wrong. I think that that is happening in the language arts.

Has your publishing experience with TWAG been different somehow from your earlier experiences with Early Greek Lyric Poetry, Horace's Odes and Epodes, or The Complete Poetry of Catullus?
In an ironic way. The poetry books were published by academic presses and reviewed very carefully by experts before publication. Hence when I'd written something stupid or made a mistake, they caught it, and it was revised. The commercial publishers of TWAG are concerned with the impression that the book makes on a more general public, and they had it evaluated with that in mind. As far as scholarly accuracy goes, I am pretty much on my own. If I have made some blunders, I will hear about it in the most embarrassing way, via published reviews. So it is like performing without a net. Other than that, the processes have been rather similar.

What are the most frustrating and satisfying parts of the publishing processes for you? (Who proofs your books for grammatical errors?)
I enjoy the process of writing as long as I am creating sentences and paragraphs and making substantial revisions, especially as I near the end and am adding finishing touches. This is tiring work, but it is exhilarating. Once the text is finished, the whole process of checking for typos, making sure that the footnotes are correct and consistent, that the bibliography is correct, etc. is alienated labor. Then you would think that it would be very satisfying to see a book in print. I find that it just makes me anxious about how well or poorly it will be received. It makes me feel exposed. Negative comments are very painful and praise is never quite good enough. All in all, for me, the only entirely satisfying part of the process is the actual writing. About grammatical errors--you always feel grateful for the efforts of any publisher's proofreaders. Boynton/Cook realized that it would be especially bad to have grammatical errors in a book about grammar, and they have caught some doozies, but I won't tell you what they were.

What would you like to see happen with TWAG?
I hope that it sells well and excites discussion about grammar in the schools. I think that a lot of people are dissatisfied with this aspect of education. I hope that they will agree with my basic position and that this will become the new consensus. Two elements are involved: the notion that understanding grammar is important; the notion that the needed understanding consists of the very elementary notions that grade school children can grasp--not cutting edge theories.

Let's talk about another of your passions--the Classics. When did you first become interested in Classical literature? When did you know you'd teach it?
I went to a Catholic high school where I struggled with Latin, but somehow couldn't just walk away from the challenge that it presented. That was part of it. Then, quite by chance when I was sixteen, I read one of Plato's shortest and most brilliant dialogues, the Euthyphro. It just seemed to me to be the most intelligent and liberating thing that I had ever read. Here was a person who was challenging his readers--in language that anyone could understand--to think through the most basic questions for themselves. No other books I had ever seen could touch Plato. In college, I majored in classics and thought about going into law, but I kept getting sucked deeper and deeper into the study of the Latin and Greek languages and literature. I don't think that I decided to teach Classics. It was more like realizing that I was going to after it was too late to change my mind.

What are the traits about Classical literature that most have influenced your teaching? Your writing?
Classical writing is straightforward. For the most part, it is addressed to its readers just as fellow human beings. It is worlds apart from today's scholarly writing, which is full of shibboleths and references to other works. The Classics don't have footnotes. In a way, that tells you the whole story.

This is probably a diabolical question to ask, but what is your all-time favorite Classical work, and why?
My opinion has evolved over the years. For a long time, it was the Iliad, which presents a fully realized picture of a fictional world of unbearable beauty and poignancy. That was eventually displaced by Plato's Republic, which induced me to believe that I could be perfect--not that I ever really would be, but that it was theoretically possible. I have read and taught those works dozens of time and feel ready for some new passion. Recently, I studied an essay by Montaigne that seemed to me to be on their level. I think that when I retire, I will become a Montaigne expert.

Let's talk a minute about education. You have been a vocal critic of academia and active in educational reforms. What have been the most satisfying accomplishments in these areas?
I am discouraged about the state of higher education. It has become a great industry that has to grow in order in order to survive. As a result, standards have been very generally watered down or abandoned. They cannot be restored without flunking out or turning away huge numbers of students. That is not going to happen. The only alternative is to make rigorous programs available to subgroups of dedicated students here and there. Yet such programs like those tend to be corrupted. To have a "successful" program you need numbers. To get numbers, you need low standards.

What in education do you still think needs the most work?
I emphasize grammar in grade school because I think that that is an area where improvement is possible in a practical sense. Grade school teachers could be certified in basic grammar and be induced to teach it without any great disruption in the system. Improvement there would have a positive effect in the higher grades. More students could learn foreign languages, for example.

You've been intimately involved with the National Association of Scholars (NAS). Can you briefly explain why this organization is so important to you?
It was founded in the 90's to oppose the excesses of political correctness on campuses, and it has succeeded in legitimizing criticism of some programs that had become sacred cows. The use of racial preferences under the banner of "affirmative action" is the biggest example. We still have some ways to go on that issue, but we have been making progress. We have also tried to legitimize the idea that despite its imperfection western civilization is an essentially good thing.

You devised an alternative general-education program for UWM in 1999. How is that program doing now?
It illustrates a problem that I just mentioned. Only a handful of students have earned our certificate, about a dozen, because its requirements are prohibitively difficult by contemporary standards. Students have to do calculus and reach the advanced level in a foreign language in addition to studying some great books. You would be surprised how few students will study language or mathematics just because it is good for their intellectual growth.

You've been involved in efforts to foster the study of humanities to low-income people. Is the Odyssey Project still in place at UWM? What has been the most satisfying moment for you as coordinator?
We have had two successful years, but funding is in doubt for year three. The greatest satisfaction comes from the students who have told me, as several have, that the course has given them the confidence they need to enter or return to college and pursue their dreams. The program gives students an opportunity to have an exciting, intellectual life, compare thoughts on passages from great works of literature and philosophy and works of art. This is an invaluable experience. The students who finish the course typically still have major educational deficits to overcome, but generally with determination they are capable of earning a college degree. Of course, to be honest, I have misgivings about the college educations that they go on to get, but they are far better off than no education at all.

Do lower-income students view the Classics in a different way than more affluent students? If so, explain those differences.
There is a huge difference. Most regular students are very reluctant to express their reactions to their readings or to anything that you have to say. They are either shy and defensive or just cynical and alienated. Whatever the reason, they view education as so much bad television. They do not expect to participate beyond watching the show and maybe answering some questions on a test. Odyssey Project students represent the opposite extreme. They are eager to respond and share their opinions. This makes them a delight to teach. I don't know exactly what accounts for the difference, but it is quite remarkable.

Have you had trouble attracting the funding to continue the Odyssey Project? Why or why not?
Funding is a problem. As a university employee, I cannot go to just any potential donor. I have to take turns in effect with other university programs that are also seeking grants from donors. Politics is involved in who gets to go where. I have a number of allies who are working hard to save the program. Right now it is up in the air.

Why do you think students' ignorance of grammar is deepening?
There is a set of misguided assumptions about teaching grammar that has created a downward spiral. The notion that speaking Standard English correctly has no intrinsic value is one of the fallacies; another is the belief that grammatical understanding has no practical value. This leads to neglect of grammar in schools of education. With each passing year, there are fewer teachers who can diagram sentences and identify parts of speech. Hence their students learn less and less.

Let's assume there are teachers who are reading this and wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that grammar needs to be restored to a prominent place in education--and let's say they themselves are deficient in grammar. What would you suggest (1) that they learn, and (2) that they teach their students? In other words, what would be the most helpful place to start?
One of the founders of ATEG, Martha Kolln, has written a very successful textbook called Understanding English Grammar. A person who works through that book should understand the fundamentals. For most people, I would recommend special attention to sentence diagramming. As for what to teach students, to me the critical point is to get to them young and teach them the grammar of simple sentences: classifying words by parts of speech, identifying subjects, objects, and prepositional phrases, and describing verbs by tense and voice. That is the foundation. Given that in the early grades, students will then ideally go on to study a foreign language in high school. That will deepen and reinforce their knowledge of grammar.

You have criticized the "New Criticism" prevalent in literature interpretation since the mid 1950s to be too loose a framework to interpret with, and that a text's "hidden meanings" are often of little or no value in the end. Can you explain the difference of, say, interpreting Hamlet as a critique of heterosexuality and its more literal meaning? In other words, what is the difference between "teasing out" meanings from a text versus the ongoing discussion of a Great Book through the ages?
I have a hard time explaining my ideas in this area. It seems to me that a work of fiction or, as the Greeks called it, mimesis is a figment, an image of an event that has been carefully designed not to teach us something about reality but to be interesting, thought-provoking. The proper use of Hamlet is as material for an open-ended conversation. Was he really crazy or not? What was his underlying problem? Do you find him sympathetic? There are no correct answers to those questions. The play was deliberately and wonderfully designed to accommodate a virtually endless number of different reactions. The problem I have with New Criticism and its heirs is that they pretend that such subjective reactions to plays and other examples of mimesis can be transformed into a science through which one will gain knowledge about reality. I think that that is just mistaken. "Teasing out meanings from a text" is a form of entertainment. In my opinion, it is probably the highest form of entertainment. It is definitely edifying. It should be encouraged, but it should not be called an academic discipline. I also think that it absolutely deadens the study of literature when a teacher places special importance on students' grasping his or her interpretations rather than developing their own.

What are the best resources available to help those of us who want to understand the Classics but struggle with their density or complexity?
This question touches on an extreme bias of mine. I have never cared for secondary sources. I belong to the cult of the original text. I think that the thing to do is start with a classic that looks accessible and read it. If you don't understand it, read it again. Homer's Odyssey offers a great ingress into classical literature. So do the shorter dialogues of Plato, like the Euthyphro that I mentioned above. In fact, the Euthyphro begins a series of dialogues that tell the story of the death of Socrates. It is followed by the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo. The Phaedo is hard, but by the time you reach that you are probably ready for the challenge. Euripides' Medea is a compelling play that anybody can understand. All of these works are available in English translations. The translations produced by reputable publishers are all fine. Choosing is a matter of personal taste. I guess I should mention that on the Roman side, the poems of Catullus are a great place to start and a brand new translation by yours truly is now available from the University of Wisconsin Press.

You've discussed the power of myth in several places. Explain how The Power of Myth video series came to be and your involvement in it.
Joseph Campbell's book and the PBS programs based on it have excited a lot of interest in myth. A library in my area sponsored a series of talks about it and had me give the introductory lecture. I don't think it worked very well because my approach to myth is different from Campbell's. I think of him as an outgrowth of New Criticism. He had an interpretation of world myth as a kind of symbolic statement of Hindu philosophy. I think that this interpretation was extremely subjective. It boiled down to what Joseph Campbell happened to think about after reading this or that myth. Also, he didn't pay too much attention to the classical Greek myths. These, I think, were too ironic and--you might say--too adult for his taste. Anyway, I gave my critique, but I don't think that the audience was won over. They wanted to hear more about the hidden meaning of myth.

Why do you think we need myths?
Myths are just stories. We need stories to enliven our minds, to give us really interesting characters and situations to think about in order to keep our skills in making judgments sharp and just to celebrate the fact that we have minds and can think and converse. I don't think myths have a hidden agenda. They are particularly interesting because their origins are undocumented. Hence, we can never be sure what lies behind them. We know, for example, that there is no truth behind Star Wars. It was just made up in a studio primarily for the purpose of selling movie tickets. In the case of the Odyssey or the Trojan War, we don't know and can never know what lies at their origins. This makes them more interesting to think about and discuss.

You've mentioned that oral tradition was very important in the continuation of myth. That characteristic has largely disappeared from our culture today. Do we have a modern potential equivalent for perpetuating stories? Are we losing something important without having "story" as a central part of our consciousness?
Oral cultures have a kind of childlike charm because in them the past--and much of the present--is very mysterious. I think that the quality of mental life in a literate culture can be just as high and as exhilarating. Shakespeare illustrates the heights that can be attained. To me the key is to understand the aesthetic purpose of storytelling, i.e., the fostering of the free play of judgment. Shakespeare surely grasped that very well. Our current leading storytellers in movies and television seem to me to have lost sight of that. They tend to be too preachy. You can see this when they produce a version of a Greek myth for television. They inevitably make it more moral. There was recently a version of the story of Helen on network television. It transformed her into a saintly character. In Homer's version, she was an essentially sympathetic character, but no saint. She left her husband because she was infatuated with Paris because he was so good-looking.

What makes the Classics great?
The Greek classics were written during a few incredible centuries of feverish intellectual activity that followed the invention of the alphabet, which made the Greeks the first highly literate people in the history of the world. From time to time, other epochs have been infected with the same kind of enthusiasm for the possibilities of the human intellect. I guess I would say that it is a question of letting out all the stops.

I understand you'll be the keynote speaker at the 14^th Annual ATEG Convention in late July. You are going to (of course) discuss the book, right? Are there other themes or issues you plan to address?
I think that my theme will be that young students need grammar, but they don't need advanced grammar or cutting-edge grammar, just the rudimentary concepts. My great example is Shakespeare. We know what he knew about grammar and it boils down to the parts of speech and very basic sentence structure. In Lombardi's terms, he just knew how to block and tackle, but he did that very, very well.

Dr. Mulroy, it's been a pleasure!
Thank you for the opportunity.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: 1-August 2003  / Updated: 8 August 2003