I’ve always been fascinated with the idea of how we learn and develop our language as children. In fact, I was thinking about this topic just the other day. I was visiting my boyfriend who was babysitting his 3-year-old niece. She saw the sling I was wearing on my right arm and informed me that I had “hurchees.” It was her own word that she had developed from hearing her parents and those around her say, “Ouchees! Are you hurt?,” at times when she had accidents. I think at this point she’s learned to distinguish between the two words she was fusing, but since everyone thinks “hurchees” is adorable and reinforces it, she keeps using it.
I thought it was an interesting connection to Williams’ discussion of cognitive grammar, in which “language is governed by patterns of regularity that begin establishing themselves at birth when children encounter the world and adults provide them with the names of things” (211). This was the discussion that I felt I comprehended the most. It’s amazing—after 8 years of phonics and grammar lessons in elementary school and 4 years as an English major, technical explanations of grammar and usage still make my head spin a little. It makes me think about how confusing it must be for those who don’t have much of a passion for writing or studying language skills.
In the beginning of this chapter, Williams was on the verge of making me question his continuity once again. I looked at the statement, “grammar can be great fun, provided it is taught properly,” and then looked across the page to see the headline: Why Teaching Grammar Does Not Work (172-3). Then I read, “Nevertheless, it is important at the very outset to recognize that the study of grammar does not lead to improved writing” (173) as well as, “grammar instruction has no demonstrated positive effect on the quality of students’ writing” (177). However, I later encountered this, “grammar instruction becomes part of an overall analysis of how good writers achieve the particular effects they do” (191).
Hmmm….I had to think this one through a bit. But I think what Williams is trying to say is something that’s related to the discussion we had in class about whether or not reading a lot makes you a better writer. You can read great books of all different genres and styles all day long, but that may not transfer an ability for you to be a better writer. You may even be able to mimic the styles of great writers, but if you’re not learning and adopting the skills for yourself are you truly improving? Reading in conjunction with the instruction and practice of writing techniques may offer a key to improvement. I think in the same sense, Williams is trying to say that completing worksheet after worksheet of grammar (or perhaps rather usage?) related questions will not bestow on students an ability to be great writers. However, once the writing skills are in place, a study of grammar (um, or usage? again) can show how it is used most effectively in different styles of writing.
I think it’s a bit confusing to say that grammar does not lead to improved writing. For me, a better statement is that grammar instruction cannot teach you how to write. And yes, I kept referencing usage in the above paragraph because, even though Williams distinguishes the difference between the two in this chapter, I still felt as though sometimes when he was discussing grammar instruction he was actually referring to usage, which falls under that broad category of grammar in our school curriculums.
My questions to others would be:
1) Can you recall any way in which your early years of grammar instruction helped you develop your writing skills?
2) Williams states that, “Large numbers of college freshmen have no more knowledge of English grammar than fifth graders” (177). If you are or were an English/Education major, are you currently or did you receive grammar instruction within your major? Do you think that a class on grammar/usage should be a requirement for those who plan to teach English?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fascinating questions. I would say seventh grade with Mr. Devlin. Mr. Devlin hovered over my desk and the threatening smell of his coffee breath made me memorize my list of prepositions and apply prepositional phrases in my writing. To your second query, I do think that such a class would be helpful. In fact, we offered a remedial grammar class for years in my school district for professional learning credit.
ReplyDeleteBeyond your questions, to expand my thoughts on why grammar instruction is so contentious...
It seems to me that the key lines of division within grammar instruction (meaning syntax, word choice, usage, punctuation, and even spelling—a catch-all term that most English language-arts teachers use to describe the “stuff” that we “have to , but don’t want to” teach) have been drawn between those who favor part to whole and whole to part instruction. As a brief aside… isn’t this much akin to the graphophonic (phonics-based) and whole language reading debate? Anyway, here is my take on the assumptions of both positions:
Advocates of part to whole instruction believe that front-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language will best enable students to apply these parts to the whole process of writing. Following are the key components of this inductive approach.
1. Memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar to provide a common language of instruction.
2. Identification of grammatical constructions leads to application.
3. Familiarity with the rules of grammar leads to correct application.
4. Teaching the components of sentence construction leads to application.
5. Distrust of one’s own oral language as a grammatical filter .
Advocates of whole to part instruction believe that back-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language, as is determined by needs of the writing task, will best enable students to write fluently and meaningfully. Following are the key components of this deductive approach.
1. Minimal memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar and minimal practice in identification of grammatical constructions.
2. Connection to one’s oral language is essential to inform fluent and effective writing.
3. Reading and listening to exemplary literature and poetry provides the models that students need to mimic and revise as they develop their own writing style.
4. Minimal error analysis.
5. Teaching writing as a process with a focus on coherence will best enable students to apply the discreet parts such as subjects, predicates, parts of speech, phrases, clauses, sentences, and transitions to say something meaningful.
Of course, how teachers align themselves within the "http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/the-great-grammar-debate/" is not necessarily an "either-or" decision. Most teachers apply bits and pieces of each approach to teaching grammar. I take a stab on how to integrate the inductive and deductive approaches in "http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/how-to-integrate-grammar-and-writing-instruction/".
Perhaps a useful starting point for our discussion would be to come to consensus about what we expect students to know about grammar and when. Establishing a common ground on this issue can help us determine what to diagnostically assess in order to determine our students’ relative strengths and weaknesses. Only at this point does it make sense to discuss the instructional strategies that will address the needs of our students. For more about how to establish this consensus, read this article at http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/grammar-instruction-establishing-common-ground/
ReplyDelete