Download 1 - WordPress.com

1.
Grammar is broad.
2.
Grammar has no clear boundaries.
3.
Grammar is technical.
4.
Grammar is only a part of 'knowledge about language'.
5.
Grammar provides tools for expressing meanings.
6.
Every kind of English has a grammar.
7.
Grammar should be descriptive, not prescriptive.
8.
English grammar is relevant to other languages.
________________________________________
1. Grammar is broad. The most helpful 'definition' of grammar consists of a six-page
article 'What is grammar?' in The Grammar Papers. The gist is: "Grammar includes
syntax, morphology and semantics and was originally associated with logic and rhetoric."
The main point to notice about this rather pithy statement is that grammar is not just
syntax. It takes grammar to include all of the following:
•
syntax, i.e. sentence structure, where we distinguish subjects and objects,
subordinate and main clauses, and so on.
•
morphology, i.e. word structure, where we recognise roots, suffixes, inflected
words, and so on.
•
semantics, i.e. meaning - the things, people, events and so on that we refer to
when talking.
The very traditional association with logic and rhetoric is important because grammatical
structures impact on the logic and 'rhetorical success' of a communication; for example, a
grammatical pattern such as a choice of tense can make a major difference to the logical
and communicative effect of a sentence.
In short, grammar teaching should be as concerned with the 'effects' of grammatical
structures as with these structures themselves.
2. Grammar has no clear boundaries. The term 'grammar' is remarkable by its absence
from official documents - perhaps a sensible decision given the checkered history of
grammar teaching. Nowhere do we find an attempt to give a water-tight definition of
grammar which would help us to know whether or not it is meant to include any of the
following:
•
vocabulary and 'word families'.
•
sound patterns in words and the phoneme-grapheme correspondences of phonics.
•
intonation in speech and its effects on meaning.
Again this is probably a sensible decision, because in education what counts is not
whether something is 'really' part of grammar or not, but whether or not it is worth
teaching. In any case, grammar is not the kind of concept that can be given a 'correct'
definition; even professional grammarians (such as me) cannot agree, and have no
prospect of ever finding some kind of objective fact which would push us all to an agreed
definition. This doesn't mean that grammar itself is vague and subjective - on the
contrary, it is one of the most clearly structured areas of human thought outside the
natural sciences and maths - but simply that it has no natural boundaries waiting to be
discovered.
3. Grammar is technical. However we define grammar, it must include the linguistic
structures found in sentences and inside words; so pupils must learn to identify and talk
about some of these patterns. In short, they must learn about grammatical analysis and the
standard terminology associated with it. As in any other curriculum subject, both the
analysis and the terminology have strong underpinnings in academic research, so school
grammar links children to this research (and, for some, will prepare them for further
study at A-level and beyond). This research-led 'modern' grammar is very different from
the rather dogmatic 'traditional' grammar of the early 20th century. The need for technical
detail is very clear in the National Curriculum for English, in the paragraph for KS3/4
writing headed 'language structure' (p. 38); I have highlighted what strike me as the key
words:
7. Pupils should be taught the principles of sentence grammar and whole-text cohesion
and use this knowledge in their writing. They should be taught:
a.
word classes or parts of speech and their grammatical functions
b.
the structure of phrases and clauses and how they can be combined to make
complex sentences [for example, coordination and subordination]
c.
paragraph structure and how to form different types of paragraph
d.
the structure of whole texts, including cohesion, openings and conclusions in
different types of writing [for example, through the use of verb tenses, reference chains]
e.
the use of appropriate grammatical terminology to reflect on the meaning and
clarity of individual sentences [for example, nouns, verbs, adjectives, preposition,
conjunctions, articles].
The implications for teaching are spelt out more fully in "Not whether but how", whose
first part is entitled "Developing pupils' explicit grammatical knowledge" and contains
this summary (p. 5):
The aim of the requirements is to ensure that pupils are familiar with grammatical
terminology, and can make independent use of their grammatical knowledge when
reading and writing. Pupils should be taught:
•
the organising principles and structures of language;
•
how they contribute to meaning and effect;
•
how to use their knowledge of language structures in their reading and writing.
...[see below for the omitted passage]
Central to the development of pupils' explicit grammatical knowledge is the ability to
name linguistic features, structures and patterns at word, sentence and whole text level....
In short, grammar can and should become as technical as other subjects in the KS3
curriculum. This poses serious problems for teachers who themselves passed through a
grammar-free (or even grammar-hostile) education system, and the Strategy team are
trying hard to provide the training that these teachers need.
4. Grammar is only a part of 'knowledge about language'. Language changes through
time, varies from place to place and is learned by small children. None of these facts
about language is covered by the term 'grammar', but they are all things that children
should know about. This broad Knowledge About Language (often referred to by the
acronym KAL) is also recognised in the passage from "Not only but how" quoted above
(at the point of the omission marks):
They [i.e. pupils] should also be taught:
•
that language changes;
•
the sources and causes of linguistic change;
•
how meanings are affected by choice of vocabulary and structure;
•
to apply their knowledge of language variety.
These ideas are less technical than grammar, which makes them easier to teach and to
learn; but of course they are equally important because, unlike most parts of grammar,
they involve social attitudes. For example, change implies difference between
generations, so is language getting better, worse or merely different? It would be a shame
if these general issues were squeezed out by too exclusive a focus on grammar.
5. Grammar provides tools for expressing meanings. English grammar consists of a vast
collection of patterns - ways of using and modifying words - each of which is dedicated
to achieving some meaning or effect. For example:
1.
"adjective + common noun" (e.g. big book) - the adjective modifies the meaning
of the common noun
2.
"so + adjective + a + common noun" (e.g. so big a book) - the adjective again
modifies the common noun, while "a" and "so" have their usual effects; other words that
behave like so are that, too and how.
3.
"question phrase/word + auxiliary verb + subject" (e.g. what are you doing?) asks about the identity of the thing or person referred to by the question phrase/word.
Each of these patterns is a tool which allows us to achieve effects which would not
otherwise be possible. We have to learn these tools and the details of how to combine
them - for example pattern 2 can combine with 3 to give an example like "How big a
book is it?" I mentioned earlier that grammar is hard to separate from vocabulary - for
example, are the peculiarities of words such as so, that, too and how a matter of grammar
or vocabulary? This being so, we should think of grammar as growing (in the same way
as vocabulary) through the years of formal education and beyond.
6. Every kind of English has a grammar. Traditionally, grammar was associated with
standard English because schools saw grammar teaching mainly as a means of teaching
standard English. This is no longer so (as explained elsewhere), but the linkage lives on
in popular thought. In fact, every dialect has a grammar, in the sense of a set of
conventions which its speakers follow, and which sometimes distinguish insiders from
outsiders. For example, those who say Nobody done nothing are following the dictates of
their grammar just as much as those who use the standard forms: Nobody did anything. It
is important not to refer to non-standard forms as 'mistakes' or as 'incorrect' because this
is offensive to the large proportion (perhaps 90%) of the population who normally use
these forms; and in any case, it is simply wrong to assume that these forms are failed
attempts at producing the standard forms. To its credit, the National Curriculum applies
this principle by referring to "non-standard usages" or "dialectal variation" rather than
errors; and the KS3 Framework includes the following teaching objective for Year 8:
[Pupils should be taught to:] 11. understand the main differences between standard
English and dialectal variations, e.g. subject-verb agreement, formation of past tense,
adverbs and negatives, use of pronouns and prepositions.
Seen from this perspective, a child who speaks a non-standard dialect has to learn some
new grammar in order to be able to use standard dialect, so it makes good sense to
address these grammatical differences directly in class; and the more they are presented
as differences rather than mistakes, the more successful the learning is likely to be. This
enlightened attitude to non-standard English contrast sharply with traditional grammar,
and is one of the great achievements of our schools in the last few decades.
This is not to say that 'anything goes' in grammar. On the contrary, the KS3 strategy also
stresses that language varies with place, time and purpose, so what is good grammar in
one place is bad grammar in another. For example, Us books was here may be good
grammar in casual speech, but it is bad grammar in formal writing; and conversely, Our
books were here may be bad grammar in casual speech. The aim is to expand the
children's grammatical choices so that they can function effectively in any situation, if
necessary switching between standard and non-standard.
7. Grammar should be descriptive, not prescriptive. A closely related issue is whether
grammar should follow usage, or try to change it. For example, some grammarians tried
for three centuries to persuade English speakers and writers not to use split infinitives
(e.g. to boldly go) in the belief that since this was not possible in Latin (where the
infinitive is just one word) it should not be possible in English either. This mistaken
approach is called 'prescriptive grammar' because it tried to prescribe what we ought to
say - or more often, to proscribe what we ought not to say. Prescriptive grammar
proscribed not only all non-standard forms (e.g. We was sat) but also a number of
standard forms (such as split infinitives). Prescriptive grammar is pure dogma, and (as
such) has no place in our schools; and I'm happy to report that it has no place in the KS3
strategy. The Strategy publications sometimes encapsulate this rejection of prescriptive
grammar in the very useful but potentially misleading slogan "Tools not rules"
contrasting the traditional focus on restrictive rules with the modern focus on enabling
tools.
8. English grammar is relevant to other languages. Grammar provides a link between
English and other languages (all of which, of course, have a grammar). English grammar
shows many similarities to other grammars; for example, the word classes (noun, verb,
and so on) of English are very similar to the classes found in most other languages - not
surprisingly, perhaps, since we inherited them (and their names) from grammarians of
Latin, who in turn had inherited them from Greek. These similarities mean that we can
use our knowledge of English grammar when we learn foreign languages as I explain
elsewhere. At the same time, however, different languages obviously have different
grammars, and some languages have grammars that are startlingly different from English.
Being able to talk about grammar, using standard terminology, is even more important
when learning one of these languages.