Reading: The Great Grammar Debate: Part Iby Mmi RothschildThe problem with this method is that it, too, has allowed noticeable gaps in acquisition. Although many students who learn through pattern association can create original, well-formed sentences based on the rules, many still produce language that is idiomatically incorrect. An example that critics of the cognitive approach frequently reference is the often heard "excuse me, have you got fire?" in place of "have you got a light?"
Clearly, the smoking habits of a growing English-speaking populace need to be systematically diagramed and corrected before the planet is burned to the ground! Yet it is due to the preponderance of idiomatic incongruity like the aforementioned that prescriptive battle cries have grown in force and frequency over the last several years, forcing the heavy artillery of the descriptivists to roll in on the defensive: "Correctness is less important than the effectiveness of the message" (Andersson 1990). In other words, it doesn't matter that a student compliments your "good cookering" or that she is "very interesting by your class." The main thing is that you know what she means.
Who's Right?
Being objective about grammar is difficult because of the personal experiences we all bring to the table. Individuals who suffered through formulaic grammar memorization classes, for example, may in fact support the process because they now have the specifics of the rules embedded in their psyche. At the risk of revealing the author's own bias, perhaps they have blocked out how horrendously boring those classes were.
Similarly, individuals who learned through osmosis may also support their method of instruction, because while they cannot point to a sentence and diagram it down to its molecular structure they tend to have "a feeling" when something is wrong and when something is right. They do not waste time hovering over minor technical inconsistencies, but instead just write and read and enjoy the language for what it is.
The problem with both extremes is that they are just too literal. Native speakers, for example, do not use a finite number of sayings in conversation, nor do they stop someone mid-sentence who didn't use a verbal phrase and ask them to repeat the sentence "correctly." One can choose to obsess over prescriptive rules, but they have no more to do with human language than, as one linguist puts it, "the criteria for judging cats at a cat show has to do with mammalian biology" (Pinker 2000). It should be remembered, however, that the judges still need to know a little something about the cat if they're all going to judge on the same criteria. Consequently, a middle ground must be sought.
Grammar in Context
Many Language Arts teachers say that their most daunting tasks is to help students understand the pragmatics of language. English in particular is highly implicit, and when people use it over literally they can seem aggressive or rude or just downright laughable. Yet when it comes down to it, the perfect method just doesn't exist and never will. In interviewing teachers at several Bay Area middle schools, the author found that most of them resort to formal grammar teaching less and less as they become more experienced teachers. To quote one teacher's adept analogy, just as he can use a computer without understanding how it works in any great detail, he finds that language learners can go far with little theory: "After all, how many native speakers outside this profession do you know who can tell you how many uses there are for the present simple tense?"
The author does not intend to avoid grammar when he becomes a teacher, but he also does not plan to rely on it either. It seems obvious that it would be much more helpful to look at the situations students will find themselves in and then look at the types of language that will be suitable for them. This type of pedagogy has been heralded for years by language researcher Constance Weaver, who has been pushing the idea of contextual grammar since the late 1970's. Weaver, who many in education liken to the Yoda for a grammarian Luke Skywalker, bluntly asserts that the traditional teaching of grammar typically serves no practical purpose for most students: "It does not improve reading, speaking, writing, or even editing, for most of them" (Weaver 1995).
________________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mimi Rothschild is a homeschooling parent, children's rights activist, author, and Founder and C.E.O. of online education company Learning by Grace, Inc. Rothschild and her husband of twenty-eight years reside in suburban Philadelphia with their eight children.
Feeling that “our current system of education has broken its promise,” Rothschild co-founded Learning By Grace, Inc. to provide families with Internet-based multimedia education to PreK-12 children all over the world.
In addition to her twenty years of experience as a homeschool mother, Rothschild has written a number of books dealing with education published by McGraw Hill and others. Her Home Education Websites Blog consists of helpful online content and activities for Christian homeschooling families.
Electronic reproduction of this article is permitted if content is published unchanged, appropriate credit is given, and the article title links to corresponding article webpage.
The Great Grammar Debate - Part IIIRead the conclusion of the Great Grammar Debate so you better understand it and how different educators approach teaching grammar. Reading this will be most beneficial to you and how you approach teaching grammar to your homeschoolers.
