Grammar, Usage and Language Acquisition

After reading William’s chapter on grammar and writing, I realized that even though this reading was comprehensive, more than likely it didn’t even cover a portion of the discourse about the topic. But I am glad he didn’t elaborate any further, because my brain couldn’t absorb any more. The thoughts I had after reading this chapter centered on the questions Williams asked to challenge the reader to come up with ideas concerning what role grammar really plays in writing performance? And how does one teach grammar effectively (173)? Also interesting was whether or not language acquisition is innate or learned.

I liked the beginning of the chapter because it was like a review session on grammar, usage and errors. It has been some time since I have had a lesson in these areas. In fact, I don’t ever remember learning that there was a difference between grammar and usage. It seemed like in this section Williams was saying essentially the same thing as Somerset Maugham (The Summing Up, 1938), “It is necessary to know grammar, and it is better to write grammatically than not, but it is well to remember that grammar is common speech formulated. Usage is the only test.” (http://www.edwinesmith.com/~edwinesm/The%20Summing%20Up.htm)

Williams listed several studies all indicating the failure of teaching any of the different types of grammar to enhance students writing. His conclusion was that grammar instruction had no “positive effect on the quality of student’s writing” (177). But he said, “Grammar should be taught,” because students deserve an opportunity to learn about the language they speak (180).

At first I thought this was a contradiction, then I realized what Williams was saying. It was about ‘how’ grammar should be taught that could make a difference for students. Later he gave some specifics on using direct and indirect instruction. He said that “direct instruction works best if complemented by indirect instruction, which links the study of grammar and usage to some other subject as an integral part of daily activities” (191). I agree with Williams that teaching grammar as part of something else takes the focus off of boring drills and allows grammar and usage instruction to “give students tools for discovering language in all its varieties (191).

I was taught by the Traditional method with its’ emphasis on “correctness” and “categorical names for the words that makeup sentences” (192). I remember agonizing over diagrams. I still don’t know what they were supposed to teach me. I think the traditional method has great value, but needs to be incorporated with other methods to make it more appealing. I do agree that it should be taught.

Williams really emphasized usage errors and I guess rightfully so, because the words we choose communicate our meaning. I am guilty of many of the errors Williams listed like: substituting whom for who, and that for which, etc. I do remember some rules I learned for usage. For example, the use of I or me was taught the following way for a sentence like this: Nicole, Karah and I (me) went shopping. My teacher had us read ‘Nicole went shopping’. ‘Karah went shopping’. ‘Me went shopping’ or ‘I went shopping’. We chose the one that sounded correct. To this day, I still go through some of these drills in my mind when I am writing, but not when I am speaking.

I liked the section about language acquisition, especially that there is some linguistic innateness about it. I studied education of the hearing impaired as an undergraduate and one of the interesting things I learned is that deaf children, given the right stimulation, will develop sign language similar to the way hearing children develop verbal language. This holds true only if the deaf child’s parents are deaf, and then the child will learn sign language as his/her native language. (Sign language is unique with it’s own grammar and vocabulary.)

If the deaf child’s parents are hearing and do not sign there is usually a delay in language acquisition for the child. This does not seem to support the theory of innateness as much as it appears to show that language is less of an innate structure and more learned. Other studies like the studies of the Nicaraguan School for the Deaf seem to support this, but also support the critical hypothesis theory that language acquisition takes place during the first three years of a child’s life. So maybe the innateness of language acquisition only functions during this time period. (http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-layout/languageaslacquisition.htm).

I think most of the information Williams has provided was helpful to show us all the theories that are out there. We have to decide which ones have the most data to support them and how we can use a theory for the purposes of facilitating student’s writing.