I never noticed the glaringly obvious grammatical error on my PC every time it shut down until a professor of postmodern fiction pointed out the malapropism to our class. The phrase "Windows is Shutting Down" seemed natural and I never picked up on the fact that the subject and verb of that phrase don't match. After enlightening our class, our professor then proceeded to show us "Windows is Shutting Down" by Clive James. Here's the poem (bolded for emphasis):
Windows is shutting down, and grammar are
On their last leg. So what am we to do?
A letter of complaint go just so far,
Proving the only one in step are you.
Better, perhaps, to simply let it goes.
A sentence have to be screwed pretty bad
Before they gets to where you doesnt knows
The meaning what it must of meant to had.
The meteor have hit. Extinction spread,
But evolution do not stop for that.
A mutant languages rise from the dead
And all them rules is suddenly old hat.
Too bad for we, us what has had so long
The best seat from the only game in town.
But there it am, and whom can say its wrong?
Those are the break. Windows is shutting down.
I won’t lie--I first cringed when I read the poem and attributed the grammatical inconsistency of "Windows is shutting down" to this postmodern age dominated by "evil" technology. In this dramatic moment of self-pity, I thought about how much more difficult teaching literature will be as our students not only accept, but are also conversant in, this new literacy. However, after I thought more on this poem, I realized it doesn't bemoan the fact that our language continually morphs and changes. Instead, it seems to suggest that this new literacy is here to stay. Can we then, as future teachers of students immersed in this language, really say that it is wrong?
This week's set of readings seem to ask teachers to carefully examine our current practices. Would such reconsiderations include becoming responsive to this new literacy/grammar? Where do we set the boundaries between what language is or is not acceptable in the English classroom? I don't have any immediate answers, but I think it is something we must consider as "all them rules" seem to become "old hat."
Mackenzie
I love it! I never noticed it either. Perhaps we have accepted that "windows" is an entity, but the grammar poem says it all. Hopefully I have not subjected you to any grammatical errors in my response. But then again, most people wouldn't be able to recognize them if there were any!
ReplyDeleteI don't get it...Windows is one entity, the name of the company...so it would be Windows is shutting down since it is the operating system that is closing. Am I dense? I think the poem is interesting though, and hard to read with all of the errors.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really great way to think about the reading before!
ReplyDeleteBut I do agree with Jackie.. don't proper nouns that are plural but as part of the proper noun-ity of the word have different word?
I think the idea Renee mentioned is what the author intended. Because "Windows" is now known as a brand, one entity, we ignore how grammatically incorrect the literal reading of phrase is. Even more, Windows the company didn't seem to recognize this. I think the overall point of the poem relates to how the "norms" of our language constantly change and morph.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is a living, breathing, wild entity that cannot be contained by concrete or immutable rules. I firmly believe this and I think Mackenzie's post and Clive James' poems demonstrate it. Perhaps James meant his piece to be ironically biting, but the fact that it even exists as that shows us how far we've come in this post-modern age.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite example of corporate grammarology is when you try to pluralize 'blue tooth'. Is it blue 'tooths' or blue teeth?