This study examined 164 freshman undergraduates' epistemological and writing beliefs, and rhetorical writing performance, in a first-year writing course. Students completed epistemological and writing belief scales early and late in the semester. In addition, their end of semester rhetorical writing assignment was collected. Correlational analyses indicated significant relationships between students' epistemological and writing beliefs across a 16-week semester. Results of MANOVA show a significant shift in students' epistemological beliefs regarding fast learning and certain knowledge across the semester, as well as significant changes in their view of writing as a product and writing's purpose to avoid disagreement. Correlational analyses link students' writing beliefs to their rhetorical writing performance. The study includes a discussion of qualitative features of students' writing relative to their writing beliefs.

Preview this article: Comment & Response, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/41/6/collegeenglish13912-1.gif

I AM A MIDDLE-AGED SPECIMEN of the human race, one who has been raised in the United States with English as my native tongue, and yet, even given the benefit of a university education and years of practical experience using English, I am prone to err in my use of English. Why? But why ask such a question: for is it human to err? Yes, and if the errors are distributed more or less at random, there would be no need for further inquiry: on the other hand, if a particular error is repeated habitually, then it may be possible to adduce a causal mechanism. This I shall attempt to do for the error of the infinitive. The infinitive is a peculiar kind of error, for those who frequently defend their practice, and in defense point with glee to splits committed by wellknown writers. In many cases the cited author may be dead, and it may be impossible to query the author as to whether he regarded that as an error or not. In one instance, Sheridan Baker, as recounted in The Complete Stylist and Handbook (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976), responded to exactly that kind of citation by a student and queried Walter Lippmann as to whether a given was justified in his mind (p. 213). The response was that the was a slip which had escaped detection. But is a really an error? Yes, if we accept the proscriptive rule that one should an infinitive. Now, however, I can ask a different question, which, I hope, will get at the heart of the matter. Why has the proscriptive rule, as taught to each student, induced in the mind of every student a transformation rule such that infinitives regularly are avoided? That is, one studies grammar in school so as to acquire patterns of speech and habits of thought that will result in the generation of acceptable English. It is my contention that the rule not to split is insufficient, by itself, to induce in the mind of every student a generative grammar such that only unsplit infinitives are produced. Some, of course, may learn to avoid infinitives, but others do not. And for those whose internal generative grammar does include a mechanism that generates, automatically, unsplit infinitives, the proscription always will require what seems to them an unnecessary after-the-fact patch. The splitters, therefore, defend their behavior because, to them, it seems natural to split. To or to split, that is the problem: whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the generation of infinitives outrageously split, or to invent new rules of grammar, and by promulgating end them. But what new rule of grammar could be likely, in union with the existing rules of grammar, to induce in the mind of the