the linguistic fallacies of the language portions of the SAT

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>It's a pretty old topic as far as what's in vogue in linguistics is concerned, but I rediscovered this Language Log article today -- Language</a> Log: The SAT fails a grammar test. (Language Log, by the way, is a blog written by a panel of linguists acclaimed in their field, from Penn's Liberman to Stanford's Zwicky ...) </p>

<p>Anyway, the common stereotype of the perfect 2400 student as "just a good test taker" may not be perfectly unjustified, and it comes to mind that those who are linguistically-trained or linguistically-inclined would do worse in these sort of sections. Students who actually apply grammatical and linguistic concept rather than memorising lists of rules (which is by the way, <em>NOT</em> what grammar is truly about, as any linguistics student trained in the field of universal grammar knows...) might ironically be prone to do worse on the language sections of the test than those who do not have an affinity for linguistics -- the type of student to simply think grammar as a list of rules of language some authority made up. (As opposed to looking at the evolutionary reasons of why grammar is present in all fully-fledged natural human languages.)</p>

<p>In the language portions of the SAT, the student not only has to use what he or she knows, but what he or she knows about what the test-makers do not know.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I am antagonising about this mainly for future generations -- are the people who set the test questions on language even linguistically-trained?</p>

<p>Linguists can even go so far as to argue that the SAT "curriculum" partially contributes to the linguistic ignorance of the public -- an ignorance that later on makes them susceptible to dangerous political rhetoric that justifies badly-formed public policy as it relates to language, especially where issues of linguistic diversity and the whole mess of "English as a national language" are concerned. Grammar is more than a set of arbitrary rules -- but a set of rules that have arisen for biological and psychological reasons, reasons that are actually rather intricately tied to advanced math and information theory. But the way the SAT is set up, people are led to believe, "oh I got 700 because I don't know <em>all</em> the rules of grammar, and that's okay because the rules of grammar are so vast anyway and only a few people know all of them." </p>

<p>WHICH is not the case -- native speakers subconsciously and alway know all the grammatical rules of their native language -- those who are mentally-handicapped (e.g. patients who have suffered damage to Broca's area) excepted. However, not everyone knows how to consciously <em>analyse</em> grammar, and when digesting (or writing) fairly abstruse texts that exceed the "working memory" of grammar, the innate, instinctive capacity that tells us how to form grammatical sentences often falters. That's where conscious analysis is useful, and that's why it's also useful to test one's ability to make such analysis. But the "prescriptivist culture" of the SAT would have us believe otherwise.</p>

2

<p>Blah, blah, blah. The answers on the SAT make sense. The errors are blatantly wrong. People need to stop whining and just accept that the test has certain rules.</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
People need to stop whining and just accept that the test has certain rules.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I took the bloody test. Application season for me is over. If I ever take a standardised test again, it will be for graduate school. </p>

<p>This is not the point -- the point is that every year millions of kids are duped by the prescriptivist ideology.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The answers on the SAT make sense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>70% of the writing section does. 30% does not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
the test has certain rules.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do they actually test the rules of English, or the nonexistent rules created by the whims of inkhorns?</p>

<p>Some of the answers actually go against the natural laws of grammar in favour of whimsical prescriptions that have no grounding in linguistic fact.</p>

<p>What qualifications do the College Board test-setters have? (In contrast with say, the extremely well-qualified linguists who criticise them?)</p>

<p>
[quote]
The errors are blatantly wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay -- please tell me how not following up a comparative with a conjunction is "BLATANTLY WRONG". </p>

<p>Please tell me how analysing a collective noun as a plural noun is "BLATANTLY WRONG".</p>

<p>What are your qualifications, that you would oppose University of Pennsylvania phonetician Mark Liberman, who may I remind you has countless academic papers published in his name? Do you want to challenge his fellow Penn colleague Victor Mair too, as well as Zimmer? What do you say against Berkeley's Nunberg or Edinburgh's Pullum?</p>

<p>In contrast, who sets the bloody SAT writing section anyway? Nobody seems to know who they bloody are -- what their qualifications are or what papers they have published.</p>

4

<p>You're over-analyzing the writing section of a standardized test given to high school students. I encountered no problems with it when I took the test cold in March; I simply chose the answers that made blatant (EDIT: yes, I said, "blatant!") sense. 800W/12E.</p>

<p>Really, now: go let off steam somewhere else, because if you're going to vent your frustration about something as trivial as the mechanics of English grammar, I (and probably most others) frankly don't want to hear it!</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
because if you're going to vent your frustration about something as trivial as the mechanics of English grammar,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No you do not get it. </p>

<p>I do not have any problems with English grammar.</p>

<p>I have problems with fallacious prescriptivism which is an entirely different thing and something nearly all linguists are opposed to. Clearly, trained linguists -- you know, the type of people to be qualified for this sort of thing -- are not setting the tests.</p>

<p>I didn't have any problems with the test either -- I would have gotten a 790 if not for that bloody essay score of 8. (I got a 12 the other time -- but the second time I arrived at my test late in the middle of the essay section -- oops.) </p>

<p>Anyway, this isn't my point. </p>

<p>I do not have any problems with the test. I'm talking about what the culture of the test does in terms of inculcating ignorance into millions of students. I mean, maybe you've been bombarded with the propaganda that "singular they" is wrong all your life -- but what about students who seek to follow the actual natural grammar of English that exists?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You're over-analyzing the writing section of a standardized test given to high school students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem may be exactly that -- those with linguistic affinities may in fact be less likely to do well.</p>

<p>For example, Penn phonetician Mark Liberman (whose qualifications I trust are sufficiently established) was himself perplexed on which answer to choose, but knows how to make the "right answer," knowing only that College Board was probably too misinformed and unsophisticated to think synesis a non-error.</p>

<p>Again, what are the test setters' qualifications?</p>

6

<p>Are you basing your opinion on just this article or have you actually taken the test recently? The June SAT's writing section seemed to be very clear-cut and I'd be surprised if I made any mistakes. I agree with you that there's a discomfiting amount of ambiguity to those examples posed by Mark Liberman, but I honestly didn't see anything like that on this SAT. Maybe the College Board has since eliminated that uncertainty? You're probably worrying about an issue that has since been addressed.</p>

7

<p>Look, the guy or girl is not trying to take away any credit from those of you who did well on the writing section. He is simply bringing up an important question on the adverse effects of the SAT. I believe this article is important to CC'ers for several reason.</p>

<p>Many of us purchase the blue book and attempt to figure out how we can stop getting those 1-3 questions wrong that make the difference between an 800 and a 700. Now, I have no problem taking the critical reading tests. The passages are often interesting and informative. Furthermore, I enjoy the math section for the challenge. Yet, I must admit that in order to improve my performance on the writing section of test, I had to stop thinking about the logic and meaning of sentences. Now, I have not even read this article yet, but it sounds like these critics are perhaps getting at what many students and I have done in order to do well on the writing section. My primary qualm with the test is that I have to rethink the way I approach sentences to a way that is not quite propitious. This makes me feel quite uneasy about taking any practice tests, because it presents the possibility that they are having a detrimental effect.</p>

<p>Additionally, it's an interesting question/article for all the aspiring linguists on the forum.</p>

8

<p>If it's necessary to change your method of thinking for the writing section, it would only have to be the slightest of changes and only on the fewest of questions. Again, Mark Liberman does pose very unsettling questions, but I haven't seen any like them on the practice SATs and SATs that I have taken. The SAT writing section is not hard at all, and even if you had to adopt a new mindset, it should be easy enough for a practiced linguist to know what the "correct" answer is. With grammatic skill comes the ability to grasp the conventions of others.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
Are you basing your opinion on just this article or have you actually taken the test recently?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>May and November 2007. Each time I had no problem with most of the questions but there were questions where I thought, "there actually isn't an error here," but then realised College Board wanted me to catch instances of singular they and flag them as erroneous.</p>

<p>At times, they also flag a valid (grammatical) alternative as an error -- and it comes down to basically what isn't necessarily "more correct" but would sound more aesthetically appealing to College Board.</p>

<p>Note they still haven't replaced the two problematic questions from the so-called practice test on the website! (That is, they've been there for years.) </p>

<p>To date, College Board still hasn't set up a usage panel as Liberman has recommended.</p>

10

<p>I have now finished reading the article. I do have to concur with the author that the testmakers should get rid of the No Error option, as I often ask the question "Would the test makers considers this stylistic error an error?" For example, many problems have examples of what I consider wordiness but the difference in answers indicates that this is not what the test makers want you to notice, oftentimes the answer is (E) No Error. And this is actually where most test prep books, companies, and tutors succeed in aiding students: getting them to recognize what the test makers are testing with each question.</p>

<p>Some of those who are more snobby here might declare the Carnegie response and predicate that identifying what the test makers intentions are is easy after going through the practice tests or prep books. However, this can adversely affect the way you approach grammar. Moreover, students from poor families are not as disposed to learn this test taking technique. Can you really expect a student working a job, dealing with family problems, and overcoming financial woes to spend the time learning the test, especially when CB works so hard to dispel the fact that test prep works (practice tests, tutors, schools, etc.)?</p>

11

<p>


</p>

<p>Which then the issue comes down for a well-informed test-taker to ponder the question:

[quote]
how sophisticated and well informed do I think that the designers of this test are?...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which is not an issue a test-taker should have to ponder. The test is supposed to test <em>actual</em> errors in English. Otherwise, the test should read (as Liberman has recommended):</p>

<p>
[quote]
The following sentences test your ability to recognize grammar and usage errors. Each sentence contains one example of a word choice or a grammatical choice that is often regarded as an error by skilled users of standard American English. Select the one underlined part that must be changed to avoid this perception of error.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Furthermore, the test then only serves to perpetuate ignorance about the concepts of language in the majority of SAT-taking students, most of whom will not be pursuing a bachelor's in linguistics.</p>

<p>Westmere, this thread is not something <em>trivial</em> as ranting about English grammar. Rather I am pointing out the fact that the SAT seems to perpetuate a kind of fallacious teaching that in turn, leads to fallacious perception of the scientific idea of what grammar truly is in general. Such fallacious teaching only encourages the belief that a central authority -- not a spontaneous biological process called natural selection -- regulates grammar. In turn, such prescriptivist beliefs often go hand in hand with the belief that English should be made the national language; that dialects should be suppressed; etc.</p>

12

<p>Kiptok, consider your audience, I am trying to overcome the difference between a 700 and an 800, which unfortunately means all the world to colleges.</p>

<p>The problem lies within a change of the rules as well. After having one problem which is blatantly testing your ability to identify wordiness, it becomes rather difficult to choose (E) No Error for a problem that CB wants you to see has no major errors, but nevertheless contains a minor "wordiness" error.</p>

<p>In most cases, some of the errors I identify on the last problems are "minor" errors that ought to be ignored. On the other hand, the college board has been known to throw 1-2 questions that test obscure/tricky grammar rules i.e. the conjugations of the verbs to lay and to lie. Hence, I am paralyzed from being able to reach a definitive conclusion. My answer is unequivocally correct, yet it is ambiguous as to whether or not it is what CB wants. Perhaps more practice tests could give me a better idea of when they want me to be critical. In fact, they indeed will. Yet, I still find it preposterous that this is the manner in which I must think about the test.</p>

<p>edit: I just read your last post galoisien and now have realized that my post may seem redundant. I began typing this post before you made your last one. Sorry</p>

13

<p>His attacks on specific questions show an astounding inability to understand the purpose of the questions and the test. I don't have time to elaborate, but read over his attacks, especially the one with letter writing campaigns. He is missing the forest for the trees.</p>

14

<p>Nothing personal, nukchebi0, but Mark Liberman (along with the other writers at Language Log) has probably published more papers on linguistics than you ever will. Are you a tenured professor at an Ivy League school too? Maybe you teach in the University of Edinburgh like Pullum perhaps, or have been previous editor of American Dictionaries at Oxford University Press like Benjamin Zimmer, who now is the executive producer for Visual Thesaurus?</p>

<p>In contrast, what qualifications do the SAT test-setters have? And why haven't they set up a usage panel, the kind you know, most reputable dictionaries have? (Take for example, the American Heritage Dictionary, which Language Log writer Geoff Nunberg chairs.) What scholastic papers have the SAT test-setters themselves published? And how many thousands of citations have those papers received?</p>

<p>
[quote]
He is missing the forest for the trees.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Anyway, he more than knows what the purpose of the test concerns. (Since you know, he's likely to have taken it when the standards for the test were much harder.) But the fact that the test frequently contains questions where the "correct" answers College Board desires are frequently hazy, not only undermines confidence in the test but also makes one wonder what kind of detrimental effect the test has on students by encouraging prescriptivism.</p>

15

<p>By the way, you might like to know that Geoffrey Pullum -- one of the major co-authors of Language Log besides his colleague Liberman -- happens to be one</a> of the two primary co-authors for the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Maybe you've been a historic author yourself too? Had a hand in publishing a prestigious grammar manual? Published 200 papers yourself?</p>

<p>But nevertheless OH NOES!!1 -- such well-published linguists are apparently missing the forest for the trees, and DAMN, the College Board, whose qualifications remain unknown, must remain immune from all criticism and scholarly concern!</p>

16

<p>very convincing argument, nukchebi0</p>

17

<p>"Mark Liberman (along with the other writers at Language Log) has probably published more papers on linguistics than you ever will. Are you a tenured professor at an Ivy League school too? Maybe you teach in the University of Edinburgh like Pullum perhaps, or have been previous editor of American Dictionaries at Oxford University Press like Benjamin Zimmer, who now is the executive producer for Visual Thesaurus?"</p>

<p>I think you're forgetting that a lot of these "really qualified professors" often get caught up in their own little world where everything needs to be scrutinized, no matter how trivial. </p>

<p>And an ivy league education doesn't necessarily say much about a person. Our current president is a Yale grad...</p>

18

<p>Haha, I don't know anyone who has gotten high scores on the SAT Writing section by "memorising lists of rules." Most of us do well by being active readers and therefore having a firm grasp on the English language. (Oops -- the nature of this thread has got me paranoid as to whether "firm grasp on," though widely accepted, demonstrates incorrect use of a preposition.)</p>

<p>If one has an affinity for linguistics, I'd assume that he or she has a reasonable amount of discretion as well and is capable of detecting what the test-makers have judged as the "error," conscious or not of the ambiguity of the question. </p>

<p>Standardized tests can have vague, hazily-defined "correct" answers. Deal with it. Your energies would be better focused on, say, the subjectivity of the passage-based questions in the Critical Reading section -- or the fact that the essay is judged by humans.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
And an ivy league education doesn't necessarily say much about a person

[/quote]
</p>

<p><em>teaching</em> at an Ivy League school is another thing.</p>

<p>That is not to mention the achievement of being one of two primary co-authors of Cambridge Grammar of the English Language? You know, the kind of book the SAT test-makers should be referencing when they set out their questions about error?</p>

<p>I mean, damn if being the co-author of an authoritative grammar book doesn't give you the authority to speak on the subject!</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think you're forgetting that a lot of these "really qualified professors" often get caught up in their own little world where everything needs to be scrutinized, no matter how trivial.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? These people are far from being in the ivory tower. I suggest you take a second look at their work. </p>

<p>They are not analysing something trivial; they are campaigning against prescriptivism -- an irrational, unscientific and itself an erroneous and misinformed outlook on language, thereatening to impose unnecessary torture and ignorance on people. Language is constantly rendered more awkward by prescriptivist stylistic "advice" by individuals who do not even know what the linguistic definition of grammar is.</p>

<p>
[quote]

If one has an affinity for linguistics, I'd assume that he or she has a reasonable amount of discretion as well and is capable of detecting what the test-makers have judged as the "error," conscious or not of the ambiguity of the question.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not what the test is supposed to test though. </p>

<p>Firstly, it reflects poorly on the test-setters; secondly, it penalises those who actually follow the <em>natural</em> grammar of English. You know -- those who actually write well, follow their [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_Instinct%5Dlanguage"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_Instinct]language&lt;/a> instincts<a href="you%20know,%20the%20ones%20honed%20by%20the%20language%20modules%20evolution%20gave%20them">/url</a> rather than non-existent "rules" invented by Latin-fetishist inkhorn users?</p>

<p>Intellectuals who aren't going into linguistics and who write quite well may find themselves penalised because they mark "singular they" as a non-error; or perhaps they were raised in Britain, and used you know -- British English (where plural agreement would be a necessity with collective nouns), and the list goes on.</p>

<p>Why must being educated (explicitly or non-explicitly) about prescriptivists' misguided norms be a necessity for doing well on the test? Especially when Shakespeare used syneis and singular they; so did the Bible (KJV and NIV), Austen, and basically every author with literary merit -- the list goes on. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Most of us do well by being active readers and therefore having a firm grasp on the English language.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How do you define grasp of the English language? Because, the fact remains that if your exposure to the English language was self-taught -- reading by candlelight in a log cabin and so forth, as well as naturally conversing -- without influence from nonsensical prescriptivists, you would be penalised on at least a few questions.</p>

<p>When you say, "grasp of language," do you mean to say, "ability to be grammatical"? </p>

<p>
[quote]

Standardized tests can have vague, hazily-defined "correct" answers. Deal with it. Your energies would be better focused on, say, the subjectivity of the passage-based questions in the Critical Reading section -- or the fact that the essay is judged by humans.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those parts of the questions -- e.g. the ones that ask you to interpret the author's intent or write an argumentative essay -- are irredeemably subjective. In the real world, you will truly have to make such subjuctive judgments about everything you read or write.</p>

<p>However, when it comes to whether something or not is non-standard or erroneous, there is no subjectivity. (Though there may be a spectrum, which is a different thing.) </p>

<p>Linguistics has given us a tool in which there is a scientifically-defined answer, and thus supposedly "hazy" answers on a standardised test should not exist.</p>

<p>By forcing students to mark a perfectly grammatical sentence, as ungrammatical, the SAT not only penalises deserving students, it also fosters ignorance -- which is the bigger crime.</p>

<p>Again, can someone finally tell me what qualifications the SAT test-setters have?</p>

20

<p>I don't understand why you regard the writers of these articles as infallible sources, experts on the English language, whereas you view the test-makers -- no, not the test-makers themselves, but those who formulate the rules on which the questions are based -- as "Latin-fetishist inkhorn users." Where do you draw the line between the two? The more liberal, the more accurate? Would the best linguist be someone who accepts every colloquialism as "correct"? </p>

<p>If there is "no subjectivity" to the standard-ness of language, who's right? Who is the sole possessor of the absolute truth of the English language?</p>