The Place of Grammar in the Language Arts
Curriculum
Robert
Einarsson, Grant MacEwan Community College, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada
A paper presented
at the English Language Arts Council of the Alberta Teachers Association,
May 1999, Edmonton.
There are
in the second half of the Twentieth century, two competing views of
the subject known as "grammar." In one view, which could be termed the
"errors-based view of grammar," grammar is synonymous with rules
for correct writing. It is rules to follow and errors to avoid.
However, this is an extremely limited and prescriptive idea of grammar,
and, ironically, not a particularly accurate view at that. It
is also the cause of much of the collapse of grammar among students
and teachers. In the more holistic view, grammar is seen as the
study of language, in particular one’s own language, to look for the
underlying principles and patterns that make language work. It is
this view that is the older and, in an important sense, the more traditional
understanding of what this subject is all about. But grammar today has
become overshadowed by the "errors-based view" that we find now in almost
every handbook.
Robert J.
Connors traces the historical process by which grammar became gradually
more narrow. He traces the gradual narrowing and fragmenting of a once
holistic school subject:
In 1907,
Edwin Woolley’s Handbook of Composition reduced the system of
English grammar to a series of prescriptive error-based rules. . . .
Woolley’s Handbook was not a grammar treatise of the old sort;
as he said in his preface, "The aim of the book is not scientific, but
practical. The purpose is to make clear the rules in regard to which
many people make mistakes. No material has been put into the book for
the sake of formal completeness." (Connors, 12)
This is a description
of grammar limited strictly to utilitarian ends. It is not, Connors points
out, the original concept of traditional grammar:
A far cry
from the aims of traditional grammarians from Lowth onward, but Woolley
defined here the sort of "grammar" that would henceforward be most people’s
definition: a set of rules about words and sentences that define mistakes
as perceived by an English teacher. (Connors, 12)
The result of
this reductionism is described by Connors. It is a picture of a subject
that has fallen into decay and disrepute:
"grammar"
in English became the strange amalgam of buzzwords, legends, handbook
nostrums, half-understood transformational concepts, and decayed eighteenth-century
prescription that most of us know today. (Connors, 22)
The extent of
decay and ill-repute that grammar has suffered may be seen in the handbooks,
many of which treat their own subject, grammar, as an irrelevancy and
a nuisance. In this passage, grammar is described as a non-subject, except
as relates to error correction:
If you never
make mistakes with sentence structure and punctuation, then you don’t
need to know the difference between a simple and a complex sentence
or the difference between a main clause and a subordinate clause. After
all, you don’t need to be a mechanic in order to drive a car. But if
you sometimes make errors in sentence structure, then the terminology
in this section will help you to diagnose your problems and correct
them. You can then be your own mechanic. (Stewart, 206)
When this
error-based approach began to take over, when the grammar book became
an error book and "not a grammar treatise of the old sort," we lost
something valuable in education. I would like to describe this change
in terms of a contrast between two approaches, what may be called a
handbook approach, as we have today, versus what may be called
a textbook approach. Grammar handbooks are based on decidedly
poor sentences intended to illustrate errors; they are not based on
a study of prose models from classic authors, as at one time they were.
Handbooks are short on the explanation, reasoning and the questioning
why behind the topics that they cover; they are peremptory and dictatorial.
They do not present grammar as a system, but rather as a catalogue
and sub-division of error types. Each error is taken separately, with
no context in the larger knowledge of grammar. Hence, grammar handbooks
are notorious for filling their explanations with terminology that is
just as problematic as the question itself. A textbook, on the
other hand, would treat the subject holistically. It would systematically
explain new concepts in light of the previous. A good textbook is an
interpretive, not a dictatorial treatment.
If grammar
is to survive in today’s classroom, it will need to return to the textbook
approach. Grammar must be treated along the analogy of other school
subjects like chemistry, biology, or mathematics, all of which treat
the material in a textbook, not a handbook approach, as a fully developed
subject which involves unique cognitive skills, concepts, and interconnected
ideas.
The shift
from a textbook to a handbook approach was historically devastating
for grammar. This shift opened the door for an ongoing attack against
the position of grammar within the total school curriculum. Constance
Weaver has collected a summary of the published attacks on grammar in
this century. This litany, based on clinical studies done in classrooms,
proclaims the complete uselessness, even disadvantage, of formal grammar
as a means to improve writing skills. The historical timeline shows
a correlation between the advent of the handbook approach and the beginning
of the attacks shortly thereafter. Perhaps the attacks are justified
as far as the handbooks are concerned, but have inadvertently done damage
to the earlier, more traditional grammar as well.
In addition,
one should note the stated limitations of Constance Weaver’s argument.
She does not reject grammar, only the method that teaches it through
an understanding of the theory. She and her school wish to replace the
formal approach with a completely practical, activity-based classroom
grammar. Hence, they are by no means anti-grammar; rather they should
be termed new-grammarians. Weaver’s own book is called Teaching
Grammar in Context. Ironically, she produces something much closer
to a grammar textbook than any handbook available today. This group
of teacher-researchers simply envision a more creative, activity-based
classroom. Insofar as this gets us involved with sentences I, as a traditionalist,
actually agree with them. With their core argument, that no theory should
be taught, however, I do not agree and will address my reasons.
The attacks
that Weaver quotes are damning, but her own argument actually pulls
back from this position a considerable distance. Note the series of
concessions that Weaver is forced to make in the course of her argument.
She begins with a rejection of formal grammar, but eventually allows
"that we limit our teaching of grammar and grammatical terminology to
only those features that will be most valuable in helping writers eliminate
errors and increase the effectiveness of their sentences" (104-105).
At this point we have gone from rejecting theory to allowing it within
limits. A series of concessions eventually follows, including
- The recommendation
that we not try to teach grammar as a complete description of the
structure of English (except, perhaps, in an elective course or unit),
but instead that we focus our teaching on those concepts and terms
that are most helpful in discussing sentence expansion, revision,
and editing.
- The suggestion
that we focus instructional attention on those aspects of grammar
that are particularly helpful in creating, rearranging, and revising
sentences for greater stylistic effectiveness.
- The suggestion
that we also attend particularly to those aspects of grammar that
are most critical in helping students punctuate sentences conventionally.
- The suggestion
that while a few basic grammatical concepts may be taught in separate
language lessons, such concepts should generally be taught and reinforced
as students are revising and editing their writing. (Teaching Grammar
in Context, 181)
Weaver's attack
on grammar, as vigorous as it is, fails to dislodge the underlying principle
of structural and grammatical awareness. Her own argument advocates
the teaching of fundamental sentence structure grammar. The new-grammarian
criticisms are not really directed at the eradication of grammar; they
are directed at getting students involved with language in a more genuine
way than any handbook can provide. The question, even for these virulent
critics, is not "should we teach grammar;" the question is how
should we go about doing this.
In spite of
the clinical studies, knowing grammar in a holistic and theoretical
way cannot possibly be a harm to student writing. All of the classic
authors in English grew up on a thorough knowledge of the subject. Grammar
certainly did not do Jane Austen, or Emily Dickinson, or Abraham Lincoln,
or Winston Churchill any harm. But they did not study grammar from an
errors-based point of view. Writers like these were educated in sentence
structure grammar, as well as grammar on the word and morphology level,
in a comprehensive way. It is a disservice, it is a deprivation,
to deny our students of today the same structural awareness.
The new-grammarians
do not advocate this depravation. They envision a creative classroom
environment in which students are guided through activities that inculcate
sentence structure awareness in many indirect ways. Their methods include
imitation, sentence combining, and a host of other creative activities
with sentence level composition in the classroom. Thus far, I wholeheartedly
agree with them. However, I would like to argue against Weaver’s vision
in so far as it rejects theory. We can have Weaver’s vision of the active
classroom while still employing a grammar curriculum that is theoretical
and systematic, spanning the K-12 years.
Why is active
avoidance of grammar theory necessary? It is impossible to avoid it
altogether, as Weaver herself admits in her concessions. It would be
a more comprehensive and holistic approach, a more textbook based
approach, to set up a K-12 grammar curriculum based on underlying theory,
and use that as a framework for designing the activities. The theory
behind the error is, in fact, the more interesting, valuable, and educational
dimension of grammar.
For example,
in dealing with verbs, a typical handbook would define them as action
words and perhaps distinguish between several types such as "linking"
and "auxiliary." Then, almost immediately, it would move to verb errors
such as agreement, split infinitive, shifting tense, and so on.
But this process circumvents the whole theory behind the English verb.
It omits the more significant definitions such as "infinitive" and "finite"
being, as any student will readily acknowledge, time-related terminology.
"Infinitive," meaning "not related to time," is the state of the verb
in its pure or abstract form, not actually occurring in the sentence.
Grammarians have called the infinitive "the name of the verb," and accordingly,
the infinitive can act as a noun. "Finite," of course, relates to time;
it describes a verb actually taking place in the sentence. This is why
a finite verb must have one of the three tenses, past present or future.
Other aspects of verb theory are also substantial. The verb transformations
in English are utterly formulaic, for example from the infinitive of
"to count" into a tense form such as the progressive: "was counting,"
"am counting," "will be counting." The formula is "(‘to be’ + time form)
+ present participle of ‘count.’" The handbook approach omits other
things, such as parts of speech that are derived from, and related to,
the verb, such as the participle and the adjective:
In all the
languages we know, and probably in all others, there are three sorts
of attributives, which are called in the grammars, Adjectives, Participles,
and Verbs. – The Adjective denotes a simple quality, as brave, cruel,
good, swift, round, square. – The Participle denotes a quality, together
with a certain modification of time; as loving, which relates to time
present, and loved, which alludes to time past. The Verb is still more
complex than the participle. It not only expresses an attribute, and
refers that attribute to time, past, present, or to come; but also comprehends
as assertion; so that it may form, when joined to a noun, a complete
sentence, or proposition. (James Beattie, 1760)
Instead of
rejecting theory, we should develop a systematic, comprehensive approach
to K-12 grammar that is founded on grammar concepts but also capitalizes
on the new-grammarians’ activity-based classroom. We can let a textbook
view of the subject determine the curriculum, and then fill up the day
to day classroom with new-grammarian activities.
In this paper
I have cited the clinical classroom experiments in only a brief way.
I had no desire to repeat the condemnations of grammar. However, recent
clinical experiments may cut the other way. Studies are starting to
show what heightened awareness of language can really do for student
writing. Here is one example:
In Australia,
a number of teachers . . . have found in controlled experiments that
the simple quantity of what ten-year old children write increases dramatically
after spending some time looking at one of the many ways in which sentences
are structured. . . . It may not matter much what they look at, as long
as their attention is on sentence structure. In the U.K. . . . a secondary
school teacher . . . reports that some of his weakest students benefit
"dramatically" from an exploration of simple, compound and complex sentence
types. He supplies models and the students produce further examples
. . . . (Hudson, "Grammar Teaching")
Searches in
ERIC are turning up more and more experimental articles that show good
results from specific classroom activities. Formal grammar offers the
teacher many activity based classroom exercises, which also provide
for structured, concrete, testable lessons. Students respond eagerly
to growing awareness of their own innate language abilities, and take
very well to the rationality of this subject, not to mention the specificity
of "correct" answers in the English classroom.
A return to
a holistic, theory based grammar textbook would, in fact, be a return
to grammar in its authentic form. Martha Kolln (president of the NCTE
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar) presents us with a picture
of traditional grammar which was never, in its original form, the narrow
and prescriptive presentation of errors:
We think
that students should be capable of thinking about and discussing their
language. We think that writers who have a vocabulary for talking about
sentences, the various structures and their functions, will have greater
control over composing and revising, control over their style. ("Miss
Fidditch," 4)
Geoffrey Nunberg
gives the same picture of traditional grammar. It comes across as a humanistic,
engaging discipline. Grammarians deduce their parts of speech,
from evidence, examples, and definitions presented; they argue and defend
their categories by a process of reasoning in which our students today
also begin to participate. The picture in this quotation is not one of
an oppressive, reductionist set of errors:
Fowler’s
article is a model of the traditional grammatical method. He begins
by acknowledging the problem, and then addresses it with arguments from
precedent and analogy, being careful to distinguish between the grammatical
questions that lie within his brief and the political questions that
lie outside it. As in all good homilies, it is the method, not the text,
that matters; read Fowler on this and you will have an idea of how he
might come at a wholly different problem. (Nunberg, "Decline of Grammar")
Nunberg shows
that, in its original form, grammar was never the dry, dogmatic subject
that we have inherited from the handbooks:
The point
of traditional grammar was to demonstrate a way of thinking about grammatical
problems that encouraged thoughtful attention to language, not to canonize
a set of arbitrary rules and strictures. (Nunberg, "Decline of Grammar")
Works Cited
and Recommended
Beattie, James.
The Theory of Language. 1760.
Connors, Robert
J. "Grammar in American College Composition: An Historical Overview."
Ed. Donald A. McQuade. The Territory of Language: Linguistics, Stylistics,
and the Teaching of Composition. Southern Illinois University Press,
1986, pp. 3-22.
Hudson, Richard.
"Grammar Teaching is Dead – Not!" Ed. Rebecca S. Wheeler. Language
Alive in the Classroom. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Hunter, Susan,
and Ray Wallace. Eds. The Place of Grammar in Writing Instruction,
1995. (www.heinemann.com/hbbc/86709352.html)
Jespersen,
Otto. Essentials of English Grammar.
Kolln, Martha.
"Miss Fidditch Gets a Makeover." Syntax in the Schools. Volume
14, Number 3, pp. 1-5.
Kolln, Martha.
Understanding English Grammar.
Lester, Mark.
Grammar in the Classroom. Allyn and Bacon, 1990. (www.abacon.com/books/ab_0023700602.html)
Nunberg, Geoffrey.
"The Decline of Grammar." The Atlantic Monthly. March, 1997.
(www.theatlantic.com/issues/97mar/halpern/nunberg.htm)
Quirk, Randolph.
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
Robert
Einarsson Home Page. Contains my conference paper, "The Philosophical
Roots of Traditional English Grammar," along with several historical
readings. (www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb)
Strunk, William
Jr. Elements of Style. (www.cc.columbia.edu/acis/bartleby/strunk/index.html)
Vavra, Ed.
The KISS Grammar Curriculum. (www.sunlink.net/rpp/GC.htm)
Stewart, Kay
L., Chris J Bullock, and Marian Allen. Essay Writing for Canadian
Students. Third Edition. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada Inc.,
1994.
Weaver, Constance.
Teaching Grammar in Context. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann,
1996.
|