The Nature of Grammar as Analyzed by Stanley E. Fish and Allan G. Gross

The influence of culture cannot be avoided. The individual is surrounded by the collective, and it is this collective which constantly acts upon the individual. Social-constructivists theorize the role of culture in determining the individual is paramount. They claim everything, including perception, thoughts and speech, are all affected by the individual's cultural upbringing. Stanley E. Fish, English professor and author of How To Recognize a Poem When You See One, subscribes to this belief. Fish claims every person is part of a culture (what he coins "interpretive communities"). And it is these interpretive communities which influence every aspect of every individual (Fish 308). He goes further to assert the individual is unattainable, because "the �you' who does the interpretive work…is a communal you and not an isolated individual" (Fish 311). Allan G. Gross is a professor of Rhetoric and author of the article Rhetorical Analysis. Like Fish, he considers entities and beliefs only ostensibly objective. Gross looks specifically at the field of science to argue this point. He states even science is merely the product of rhetoric (understood as persuasive speech). Scientists are not presenting fact. Instead, they are presenting an analysis of data-an argument influenced by personal interpretation and perspective. They utilize rhetorical tools to persuade their audience and establish their finding as "fact" (Gross 365). Within the social-constructivists' framework, there is no room for truth independent of human intervention. Every conception of truth is instead a particular, relative perception. In this context, Gross understands rhetoric only as a means to persuade an audience of relative truth. It is not the job of rhetoric to show an audience indisputable truth or "the brute facts of nature" (Gross 363). However, there is a more complete conception of rhetoric-the classic Aristotelian view. The goal of Aristotle's rhetoric remains to persuade, except now it is possible to persuade the audience toward these universal truths. It is important to note rhetoric does not always serve this function. His view does not discount certain items are socially constructed and that rhetoric is applied in these situations as well. His view is simply that rhetoric no longer has to subject facts to the social-constructivists' ideal of cultural influence. A fact can be true without any cultural influence.

By any definition, rhetoric is present in many disciplines, including the field of English. Rhetoric is found in any textbook dealing with the scientific evaluation of language. In such textbooks, language is broken into its two distinct categories: linguistic competence and linguistic performance. Linguistic competence is the potential for language. Purely in the speaker's mind, it is neither measurable nor observable. Conversely, linguistic performance is what a speaker actually does with language. Unlike competence, it is completely observable and is thus the subject of scientific inquiry (Wong 10). Competence is the abstract form of language while performance is both concrete and tangible. When one writes about these two categories, rhetoric is inevitably applied. This is due to the fact the author is ultimately trying to persuade the reader competence exists even though it is an abstract entity he/she will never and can never witness. Operating within Aristotelian rhetoric, these authors are persuading their audience toward some objective truth. In this case, that linguistic competence exists.

Many of these same authors also deal with the concept of grammar. But the question becomes whether grammar is objective, as it is presented in rhetorically influenced writings. The underlying, basic concept of grammar is parallel to linguistic competence. It will never be directly seen or witnessed. Instead, it can only be observed in terms of its specific manifestations (the actual rules of grammar). These rules are thus parallel to linguistic performance. Keeping with the Aristotelian conception of truth, that underlying idea of "grammar" can be understood as true. However, the specific manifestations of a grammar system-the particular rules and restrictions of language-are better understood as socially constructed and not the objective entity they are portrayed as through rhetoric.

Grammar is generally understood as "a system of linguistic elements and rules" (Wong 524). (Again, this underlying system is related to "competence" or potential.) Listed in the table below are several examples of specific grammatical rules (the manifestation of grammar, or performance). Also in the table are several questions designed to establish if these specific rules are influenced in any way by rhetoric.

Grammatical Rules:
•"Commas are used to enclose an explanatory word or phrase" (Kemper 582).
• "The hyphen is used to join the words in compound numbers from twenty-one to ninety-nine when it is necessary to write them out" (Kemper 607).
•"A sentence must have a subject and predicate that expresses a complete thought" (Kemper 749). Question Brief Rhetorical Analysis What specific words-or what type of language in general-is used to write about grammar? "Rules"-establishes immediately a sense of fact.Technical language with a similar effect. What emotional appeals, if any, does the language make? Lack of emotion is deliberate choice-makes writing seem objective What appeals to logic, if any, does the language make? No discernible logic to the reason each rule is what it is-appears arbitrary (see below) How are grammatical conventions arranged/graphically presented when written about? Listed, often bulleted points, offering sense of logical patterns/emotional detachment, with intent to establish these rules as fact. What tone is employed in writing when grammar is presented? Again, emotionally detached, very objective, report-like Are there any attempts to establish credibility by reference to well known/respected authority? The handbook the rules are from is itself a well respected English teaching guide (Writers Inc) Does the language ever explicitly state that the grammatical conventions are "true"? No, all questions point to this conclusion but it is achieved subtly, not overtly

Analysis of the table suggests rhetoric is very much a part of establishing grammatical conventions as "fact." The specific examples of grammar (everything from comma placement to prepositions at the end of sentences) are shown to be highly rhetorically influenced. Within Aristotle's view, it is possible that the influence of rhetoric is pointing toward some universal truth (suggesting specific rules of grammar are not socially constructed). However within Gross's view, it is this rhetorical influence which suggests grammatical conventions are constituted more by social construction than incontrovertible fact. To determine which sense of rhetoric is appropriate in this case, one must note the mutable nature of specific grammatical rules. Grammar is constantly in flux. It is drastically different than it was just five, ten or fifteen years ago. It is adaptable, and therefore one cannot place any projection of truth onto any particular rule. What is true today in grammar may be considered completely incorrect or false in the future. Therefore, it can be deduced that rhetoric as applied to specific grammatical rules, suggests the influence of social construction.

The idea that specific rules of grammar are socially derived fits well within the constructs of the social-constructivists' theory. Gross would agree grammar is a rhetorical product, because he is a proponent of The New Rhetoric-the idea rhetorical analysis can be applied to any discipline (Gross 374). It is also plausible to assume he would agree specific grammatical rules are the product of human intervention and creation. Fish would similarly agree with this conclusion. In his article, he discusses the arbitrariness of gestures. His example of a raised hand illustrates there is nothing inherent about a gesture to inform the interpreter of the meaning (Fish 311). Grammatical conventions are similarly arbitrary. There is nothing inherently about a sentence that would mean it must include a subject and a predicate. The rule (and it can be generalized all grammatical rules) are both arbitrary and socially constructed through human creation and invention.

However, it must be remembered language is more than just performance, and similarly grammar is more than just its specific rules. There is still the underlying concept of grammar-those set of rules that govern a language regardless of the specific conventions. It is this aspect of grammar offered as a form of truth unaffected by human intervention. The innateness hypothesis lends validity to that claim. This hypothesis states "humans are genetically predisposed to learn and use language" (Wong 524). The theory does not state humans are hardwired to learn one specific language such as English or Chinese or even the language of their heritage. Instead, they are neurologically predisposed to learn any language, that is to say the underlying concept of "language." While the particular, concrete manifestation of language (the specific language learned) is understandably socially influenced, the abstract ability to learn a language is divorced from human intervention. To illustrate this point, one can examine the grammatical form of two separate languages, French and English. In English, a sentence can be constructed subject-verb-object (SVO)-"the boy ate the doughnut." However, in French that same sentence is constructed subject-object-verb (SOV)-"the boy the doughnut ate." While the two sentences very obviously differ in grammatical form, they both have the same underlying meaning. And more importantly, they both appeal to some more basic laws of grammar. The specific rule, whether to use SVO or SOV, is socially dependent and socially constructed. However, the fact both languages are governed by a set of rules points to a more basic truth about language in general.

It is on this point social-constructivists would differ. Recall, they do not believe in universal truths as Aristotle did. They maintain all truth is socially constructed rather than independently true. Fish, for example, would assert it was interpretive communities which offered language and consequently all its corollaries, including grammar in any form. Gross would offer there is no such state as objectivity, only the appearance of such a state through deliberate rhetorical devices. In order to maintain that argument one must say every language develops independently within its own socio-linguistic community. However, there are certain threads between all spoken languages. These "characteristics shared by all languages is known as universal grammar" (Wong 283). For every language to separately develop the same set of characteristics is highly improbable without the explanation of some sort of underlying, commonly held truth.

In all likelihood, whether grammar is socially constructed or the product of truth will never affect anyone's daily life. However, examining this characteristic of language allows access into larger questions such as "what is truth," "does truth exist," and "to what extent does the individual have control over his/her culture?" Language is a common denominator between nearly every living human being. This universality lends a sense of the personal and terrestrial to these otherwise remote and abstract questions.

Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. "How to Recognize a Poem When You See One." Reading Context. Dickson Musslewhite, Julie McBurney. : Thomas Wadsworth, 2005. 305-314.

Gross, Alan G. "Rhetorical Analysis." Reading Context. Dickson Musslewhite, Julie McBurney. : Thomas Wadsmworth, 2005. 363-375.

Kemper, Dave. "Punctuation." Writers Inc. Lois Krenzke, Pat Sebranek. : D.C. Heath and Company, 1996. 582-749.

Wong, Wai Yi Peggy. Language Files 9. Georgios Tserdanelis. Ohio: The OhioStateUniversity, 2004. 10, 283, 525.