I have to start off by saying that I found Chapter 7 to be particularly taxing (although I have to admit, I actually enjoyed going over some of the common grammar/usage error exercises). There was so much information on the different types of grammar and I had a pretty tough time getting through the section on Chomsky and transformation-generative grammar. I will say, however, that I was intrigued by the studies that were conducted with high school students and used to discover whether or not teaching grammar or leaving it out of the curriculum affected students’ ability to write. The conclusion of the experiment was that grammar instruction had no significant bearing on a student’s writing skills. I thought this was remarkable since, from a very early age, instruction on how to write using the rules of traditional grammar is emphasized in schools.
In our last class discussion, it seemed like many people were reconsidering their stances on whether or not grammar was more important than meaning. Grammar, at least in my own experience, was drilled into my education as the tool to become a better writer. As I’m now beginning to realize, all this time I’ve been reading over my papers and trying to fix ‘grammatical’ errors, I’ve probably been looking at usage. So why do schools keep stressing the instruction of traditional grammar? As Williams’ points out, this method only “perpetuat[es] a historical model of what supposedly constitutes proper language” (193). Transformational-generative grammar and cognitive grammar are fascinating for linguists and psychologists, but they don’t seem to have a real-world application for instructing students.
The alternative to these three is phrase-structure grammar, which Williams says is “superior” to traditional grammar because it “provides a more accurate analysis of language” (198). This description sounds wonderful, but since phase-structure grammar waned in popularity around the mid-1950s, it looks like this ongoing misunderstanding about what constitutes true grammatical errors and what are errors of usage will remain in our school systems for some time to come, especially if teachers cannot properly identify the difference. It comes as no surprise then that students get discouraged in their writing when so much weight is placed on mechanics and simple usage errors instead of content. Native speakers of English generally know how to get their thoughts across (whether spoken or written), but it takes the right type of instruction and practice throughout life, and particularly in school, to enable individuals to become competent readers and writers. As of the end of this chapter, I’m still not entirely sure what type of training that entails. Williams left me with little confidence that any of the types of the grammars he described will truly help students. And with each new chapter, I’m finding this issue of grammar versus meaning to be more and more perplexing.
Showing posts with label Blog 7. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog 7. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
grammar: you can't live with it and you can't live without it
I feel completely scared and anxious when I think about having to teach grammar to future students. The last grammar class I took was in tenth grade. I have no recollection of a nominative this or a demonstrative that. I’ve joked with friends that I need to buy a copy of grammar for dummies before I set out to take the praxis II test. After reading this chapter, I have come to realize that I make many usage (rather than grammar) mistakes within my writing and speech. Despite this, I know that I am a strong writer. Yet, I would have much trouble trying to explain why I write the way that I do and why it is the correct way (for the most part) to write. At this point, my writing skills seem to reflect an instinctive process.
I do not believe that grammatical lessons breed outstanding writers. If this is the case, my writing skills would have gone downhill after tenth grade. Williams provides us with multiple examples that support this claim. Most of the Spanish classes I took in high school revolved around usage and grammar, and I learned a great deal about usage and grammar in these classes. Because I already had experience with writing in my native language, I could produce adequate pieces of writing in these classes. However, if I had no experience with writing before taking these classes, I would have had a very hard time trying to write essays and narratives in Spanish. When learning another language, it is much easier to comprehend that language through reading and listening. It is more difficult to speak and produce one’s own writing. I would not have been able to produce good writing in these classes based solely the grammatical lessons from my teachers. I had to rely on my innate skills. I can imagine that writing can be seriously hard for students, even in their native languages, if they have never learned how to write well.
I was helping my teacher grade essays written by twelfth graders at the school that I am observing at. Most of the essays were very poorly constructed. After reading this chapter, I recognize that most students had trouble with usage rather than grammar; however, there were quite a few grammatical mistakes as well. The errors that stuck out to me the most were sentence fragments, run on sentences and punctuation errors. I was shocked with what I read. A week later I was helping the teacher grade ballads for the same class. Most of the ballads were amazing! I was so confused! For the most part, the students’ exercised proper usage within their creative poems. Their word choice and sentence structure were significantly better as well. How can this be explained? Why can these students construct creative and profound poems, but cannot write a very simple essay? These results were pretty much the same for the majority of the students. I feel as though these observations reflect Williams’ ponderings on competence and performance. Obviously, all of these students have competence, but their performances vary depending on the assignment. Can anyone explain this or come up with a theory for why this is happening?
I do not believe that grammatical lessons breed outstanding writers. If this is the case, my writing skills would have gone downhill after tenth grade. Williams provides us with multiple examples that support this claim. Most of the Spanish classes I took in high school revolved around usage and grammar, and I learned a great deal about usage and grammar in these classes. Because I already had experience with writing in my native language, I could produce adequate pieces of writing in these classes. However, if I had no experience with writing before taking these classes, I would have had a very hard time trying to write essays and narratives in Spanish. When learning another language, it is much easier to comprehend that language through reading and listening. It is more difficult to speak and produce one’s own writing. I would not have been able to produce good writing in these classes based solely the grammatical lessons from my teachers. I had to rely on my innate skills. I can imagine that writing can be seriously hard for students, even in their native languages, if they have never learned how to write well.
I was helping my teacher grade essays written by twelfth graders at the school that I am observing at. Most of the essays were very poorly constructed. After reading this chapter, I recognize that most students had trouble with usage rather than grammar; however, there were quite a few grammatical mistakes as well. The errors that stuck out to me the most were sentence fragments, run on sentences and punctuation errors. I was shocked with what I read. A week later I was helping the teacher grade ballads for the same class. Most of the ballads were amazing! I was so confused! For the most part, the students’ exercised proper usage within their creative poems. Their word choice and sentence structure were significantly better as well. How can this be explained? Why can these students construct creative and profound poems, but cannot write a very simple essay? These results were pretty much the same for the majority of the students. I feel as though these observations reflect Williams’ ponderings on competence and performance. Obviously, all of these students have competence, but their performances vary depending on the assignment. Can anyone explain this or come up with a theory for why this is happening?
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.
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.
No one likes the Grammar Police
It is interesting that Williams chooses to kick off the chapter by saying that the study of grammar does not lead to improved writing. OK, so now that we’ve established that, why do we still seem to dedicate so much time and effort to this subject in our schools? In fact, last semester I had to take a 100-level English class that dealt entirely with grammar conventions. We even had to diagram sentences, which was really lame and incredibly boring. I can think of a lot of other things that I’d rather do than teach grammar, but I guess that the use of standardized test in the schools requires the districts to ensure that grammar is included in the curriculum. This is too bad for the students, because it really isn’t much fun for them, even if you do try to come up with creative ways to teach the stuff.
I found it fascinating to learn that internalized grammar begins developing at birth. I guess that means that babies start picking up on language (or at least communication in some form) as soon as they leave the womb – or maybe even before then. I will have to keep this in mind, because if I ever have kids of my own the last thing I’d want them to hear is some of the dirty language that comes out of my mouth, especially when I am watching football or having some beers with friends. I used to think that kids – especially when they were only babies – were often too small to pick up on things that adults said, but it seems like that isn’t the case at all. Just something to think about down the road….
One more thing…I noticed that Williams says that all people make numerous mistakes with language, and that sometimes the more educated a person is, the more likely that he/she is to make a mistake. It’s funny that I should come across this now. The other day I was in one of my education classes when another student remarked that he/she is in the habit of correcting language mistakes that his/her friends make when they communicate. I thought this seemed a bit odd, so I mentioned this in class, and then this person declared that she would continue this practice with her students. I guess this is something that is appropriate in the classroom (although I am not entirely sure about that, either), but I certainly wouldn’t advise people to get out on the streets in a grassroots effort to fix one another’s language blunders. Although you might be trying to help someone, this type of thing can easily come across as elitist, pompous, rude, or whatever adjective you find appropriate to describe the scenario. Just thought I’d point this out, but only because Williams points out that everyone – even I – makes mistakes with language. So the moral of this story is: don’t go out and start pointing fingers at others until you’ve taken a look at yourself. After all, no one (that I know) likes the Grammar Police.
I found it fascinating to learn that internalized grammar begins developing at birth. I guess that means that babies start picking up on language (or at least communication in some form) as soon as they leave the womb – or maybe even before then. I will have to keep this in mind, because if I ever have kids of my own the last thing I’d want them to hear is some of the dirty language that comes out of my mouth, especially when I am watching football or having some beers with friends. I used to think that kids – especially when they were only babies – were often too small to pick up on things that adults said, but it seems like that isn’t the case at all. Just something to think about down the road….
One more thing…I noticed that Williams says that all people make numerous mistakes with language, and that sometimes the more educated a person is, the more likely that he/she is to make a mistake. It’s funny that I should come across this now. The other day I was in one of my education classes when another student remarked that he/she is in the habit of correcting language mistakes that his/her friends make when they communicate. I thought this seemed a bit odd, so I mentioned this in class, and then this person declared that she would continue this practice with her students. I guess this is something that is appropriate in the classroom (although I am not entirely sure about that, either), but I certainly wouldn’t advise people to get out on the streets in a grassroots effort to fix one another’s language blunders. Although you might be trying to help someone, this type of thing can easily come across as elitist, pompous, rude, or whatever adjective you find appropriate to describe the scenario. Just thought I’d point this out, but only because Williams points out that everyone – even I – makes mistakes with language. So the moral of this story is: don’t go out and start pointing fingers at others until you’ve taken a look at yourself. After all, no one (that I know) likes the Grammar Police.
grammar vs. usage
Let me begin by giving Williams an Emphatic “YES” to his first statement in this chapter in which he says that most English teachers are unprepared to teach grammar effectively. I feel completely unprepared to teach grammar simply because I have not had a grammar course in more years than I care to remember. Oh I understand grammar; it is just that I don’t why I do what I do with grammar enough to be able to verbalize it. I had an instructor in one of my classes ask us to diagram a sentence, and for the life of me I couldn’t remember what that meant. I ended up having to go back and re-teach myself the process. I truly expected to see grammar instruction as a part of the curriculum when I began my college career, and I am still surprised that it is not. I did have a linguistics class, but really that class was more about the science of language (morphemes and phonemes come to mind) rather than the nuts and bolts of grammar. I find that because of this omission in my curriculum, I have to re-teach myself quite a bit as far as grammar is concerned simply because it has been so long since I’ve needed it that I have forgotten the rules. As for usage vs. grammar; Williams is right here too when he says that there is an overall failure to differentiate between the two. I readily admit that until reading this chapter. I used both terms interchangeable. So, according to Williams, grammar is how words work together as well as their common patterns, while usage is about word choice and meaning.
Williams goes on to say that teaching grammar does not lead to improved writing. As I looked at this statement (and looked at my newly acquired definitions of grammar and usage) I had to agree. On the one hand, I agree that my knowledge and ability to diagram a sentence will not determine my ability to write well. We all have a basic idea of grammar since we write similarly to the way we speak. We don’t say “Macarena caked the bake” so we won’t write it that way either. However, if I am an English language learner I will not have had the experience of hearing the language and acquiring that language as a child when my ability to duplicate language is developing. It is in this instance where I would say that grammar knowledge can improve writing.Last week we had an animated discussion on which was more important, grading for grammar or grading for meaning.I believe that meaning is more important in our writing, but grammar cannot be completely overlooked either. I think we'll be grappling with this debate for a very long time.
Williams goes on to say that teaching grammar does not lead to improved writing. As I looked at this statement (and looked at my newly acquired definitions of grammar and usage) I had to agree. On the one hand, I agree that my knowledge and ability to diagram a sentence will not determine my ability to write well. We all have a basic idea of grammar since we write similarly to the way we speak. We don’t say “Macarena caked the bake” so we won’t write it that way either. However, if I am an English language learner I will not have had the experience of hearing the language and acquiring that language as a child when my ability to duplicate language is developing. It is in this instance where I would say that grammar knowledge can improve writing.Last week we had an animated discussion on which was more important, grading for grammar or grading for meaning.I believe that meaning is more important in our writing, but grammar cannot be completely overlooked either. I think we'll be grappling with this debate for a very long time.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
This is why Williams need to be available to answer questions
Okay, so I got lost again in Williams’ chapter. I remember at one point there were so many words on the page that my eyes started to cross. He would often lose me, and then I’d find my way back, only to find myself completely lost again quite quickly.
I wish every week I could call Williams after reading this book because I have so many questions for him. For example, Williams says, on p. 178, “every native speaker of a language already knows the grammar on an implicit level.” I can’t help but wonder if this really is true. What about children who are adopted at an early age and are already speaking, and are taken to another country, where they become fluent in that language? How does Williams account for children who start speaking one language, then change and learn a whole new language, one that becomes their primary language, and who can write quite well in this new language? They were not native speakers, so how do they know the grammar of the language so well? I am thinking about two Asian boys I know who were already speaking Chinese when they were adopted and brought to the United States. They now speak fluent English, and write well for their age (9 &5). They know the grammar of English, but it was not originally their native language. (Do these questions even make sense?) What about students who are bi-lingual? There many people who speak English and Spanish fluently, most since birth. They can switch easily between the two languages, speaking and writing grammatically correct in either language even though in Spanish ordinary statements can start with the subject, the verb, or the object.
I do not totally agree with Williams when he says, “The preceding errors are most likely the result of students’ pervasive lack of reading experience” (183). I feel that the English is one of the hardest languages to master. We have so many rules and nuances and words with multiple, unrelated meanings that it is hard to grasp it all. Lack of reading doesn’t always account for improper use of words. First, we have many words that sound alike. Using his examples, granite/granted, illusion/allusion, except/accept. They sound the same. I know LOTS of adults who get confused whether to use affect or effect. We all have misspelled to, two, and too in our writing. It wasn’t because we haven’t seen them in other people’s writing; it’s because we get confused on which one to use. And the whole discussion over using I or me in a sentence is one that we will have for a long time, because it is all situation specific. That is what makes English so hard.
One thing that confused me is Williams’ suggestion that students listen for mistakes in language usage and grammar. If words sound the same, then how do we know if there is a usage mistake? How do you know if a person is saying “I took it for granite” or “I took it for granted”? Unless we are all speaking the exact say way, with the same dialect and word pronunciation, this activity can be very hard to do. These subtle mistakes in usage are hard to determine unless they are seen. Are we than to say that someone who pronounces “ask” like “axe” has poor usage skills? They are asking “Can I ask you a question” but I hear “Can I axe you a question”. Are they wrong in what they say or am I wrong in what I hear?
I think that there needs to be a realization that the English language is a very hard language to learn and understand, even for native speakers. As I said before, there are too many rules, exceptions to the rules, nuances, and more, that even as someone who enjoys reading and writing and who wants to teach this, I am overwhelmed by it all.
I wish every week I could call Williams after reading this book because I have so many questions for him. For example, Williams says, on p. 178, “every native speaker of a language already knows the grammar on an implicit level.” I can’t help but wonder if this really is true. What about children who are adopted at an early age and are already speaking, and are taken to another country, where they become fluent in that language? How does Williams account for children who start speaking one language, then change and learn a whole new language, one that becomes their primary language, and who can write quite well in this new language? They were not native speakers, so how do they know the grammar of the language so well? I am thinking about two Asian boys I know who were already speaking Chinese when they were adopted and brought to the United States. They now speak fluent English, and write well for their age (9 &5). They know the grammar of English, but it was not originally their native language. (Do these questions even make sense?) What about students who are bi-lingual? There many people who speak English and Spanish fluently, most since birth. They can switch easily between the two languages, speaking and writing grammatically correct in either language even though in Spanish ordinary statements can start with the subject, the verb, or the object.
I do not totally agree with Williams when he says, “The preceding errors are most likely the result of students’ pervasive lack of reading experience” (183). I feel that the English is one of the hardest languages to master. We have so many rules and nuances and words with multiple, unrelated meanings that it is hard to grasp it all. Lack of reading doesn’t always account for improper use of words. First, we have many words that sound alike. Using his examples, granite/granted, illusion/allusion, except/accept. They sound the same. I know LOTS of adults who get confused whether to use affect or effect. We all have misspelled to, two, and too in our writing. It wasn’t because we haven’t seen them in other people’s writing; it’s because we get confused on which one to use. And the whole discussion over using I or me in a sentence is one that we will have for a long time, because it is all situation specific. That is what makes English so hard.
One thing that confused me is Williams’ suggestion that students listen for mistakes in language usage and grammar. If words sound the same, then how do we know if there is a usage mistake? How do you know if a person is saying “I took it for granite” or “I took it for granted”? Unless we are all speaking the exact say way, with the same dialect and word pronunciation, this activity can be very hard to do. These subtle mistakes in usage are hard to determine unless they are seen. Are we than to say that someone who pronounces “ask” like “axe” has poor usage skills? They are asking “Can I ask you a question” but I hear “Can I axe you a question”. Are they wrong in what they say or am I wrong in what I hear?
I think that there needs to be a realization that the English language is a very hard language to learn and understand, even for native speakers. As I said before, there are too many rules, exceptions to the rules, nuances, and more, that even as someone who enjoys reading and writing and who wants to teach this, I am overwhelmed by it all.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
[Insert catchy title here]
I definitely struggled through this chapter. Williams lost me at about page 190. I felt like I was going through a grammar/usage lesson myself. Everything Williams was talking about was extensive and exhausting, but it made me re-think the topic from the previous chapter… is grammar more important than meaning? Or vise versa?
Well, after this reading, I could care less about who or whom and lay or lie. At this point, meaning seems to be a hell of a lot more important than the mechanics of writing. Now, I’m not saying that correct usage should be thrown out the window completely but does it really matter if you write or say who instead of whom? I or me? Of course, there are the exceptions.
And no wonder why children seem to never grasp the concept of correct grammar, and get frustrated because it always seems to be changing in accordance to teaching styles. I think that’s where the real issue lies (or lays?). Two teachers can grade the same paper differently because both teachers have a different definition of correct grammar and usage. So when teaching students, is it better to have grammar taught through certain grades only, or should it be continuous throughout their education so they don't get confused?
To me, the topic of usage seems confusing to everyone – young and old – because no one really knows the correct form, and according to Williams, only a few really do. If most people don’t use correct usage, how do we teach it? Or why should we teach it (in depth)?
All in all, at this point (in reading Williams), I would have to say that meaning would be more important than grammar; however, I still believe students should have a basic knowledge of grammar (as referenced on pg. 171). On the topic of usage… I’m still confused.
Well, after this reading, I could care less about who or whom and lay or lie. At this point, meaning seems to be a hell of a lot more important than the mechanics of writing. Now, I’m not saying that correct usage should be thrown out the window completely but does it really matter if you write or say who instead of whom? I or me? Of course, there are the exceptions.
And no wonder why children seem to never grasp the concept of correct grammar, and get frustrated because it always seems to be changing in accordance to teaching styles. I think that’s where the real issue lies (or lays?). Two teachers can grade the same paper differently because both teachers have a different definition of correct grammar and usage. So when teaching students, is it better to have grammar taught through certain grades only, or should it be continuous throughout their education so they don't get confused?
To me, the topic of usage seems confusing to everyone – young and old – because no one really knows the correct form, and according to Williams, only a few really do. If most people don’t use correct usage, how do we teach it? Or why should we teach it (in depth)?
All in all, at this point (in reading Williams), I would have to say that meaning would be more important than grammar; however, I still believe students should have a basic knowledge of grammar (as referenced on pg. 171). On the topic of usage… I’m still confused.
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Importance of Grammar or Usage?
I’m going to be honest, this chapter was a drudge to get through, and I could not wait until the end. Personally, I felt the chapter should be divided into two. Williams is driving me crazy with all of this information, and he is so confusing. I was under the impression that he hated grammar, and now Mr. Williams is talking about the importance of it.
I must admit all of the grammar classes I have taken have been similar. The grammar lessons I had in 7th grade were basically the same as the class I took in college. I’m so confused. If it has been proven that grammar does not improve writing, then why are teachers still teaching it? Why would they simply ignore the research? Do they not know the research? None of this is clicking in my mind.
I think I get it. My problem has been that I forgot the important difference between grammar and usage. Individuals already know grammar; however, usage can change meaning. Example:
“I want a ham and cheese and turkey sandwich,” said Bob. (All one sandwich)
“I want a ham and cheese, and turkey sandwich,” said Bob. (Two different sandwiches)
I’m not sure if this makes sense, but meaning changes when usage is incorrect. Therefore, I would argue that usage (not grammar) is as important as content. Usage can cause content to be very unclear.
I still have issues with words like lie and lay. The problem is you here them used incorrectly all of the time, so they both sound write. Who and whom is another problem I have a lot. I really need a class that is going to drill all of these words into my head, otherwise I will continue to struggle with them.
There are so many different types of grammar! In school I was obviously taught traditional grammar. I found it annoying sometimes, but I’m thankful for it now. Cognitive grammar seems kind of obvious in some respects. Of course everyone makes mistakes when they speak, and the older you get the less mistakes you will make. The psychology aspect of transformational-generative grammar was interesting. I did not fully comprehend the importance of the phase-structure grammar. Chomsky stated, “ . . . that phase-structure grammar was inadequate because it failed to explain and describe even simple sentences and because it failed to provide a theory of language” (199). I suppose if something did not work, then all that is important is to understand why it didn’t work. Overall, I don’t see anything wrong with traditional grammar. Personally, I felt like traditional grammar is the most beneficial; however, I’m not sure if that is what Williams wanted me to think. I'm never sure what he wants me to think. He is a tricky man.
I must admit all of the grammar classes I have taken have been similar. The grammar lessons I had in 7th grade were basically the same as the class I took in college. I’m so confused. If it has been proven that grammar does not improve writing, then why are teachers still teaching it? Why would they simply ignore the research? Do they not know the research? None of this is clicking in my mind.
I think I get it. My problem has been that I forgot the important difference between grammar and usage. Individuals already know grammar; however, usage can change meaning. Example:
“I want a ham and cheese and turkey sandwich,” said Bob. (All one sandwich)
“I want a ham and cheese, and turkey sandwich,” said Bob. (Two different sandwiches)
I’m not sure if this makes sense, but meaning changes when usage is incorrect. Therefore, I would argue that usage (not grammar) is as important as content. Usage can cause content to be very unclear.
I still have issues with words like lie and lay. The problem is you here them used incorrectly all of the time, so they both sound write. Who and whom is another problem I have a lot. I really need a class that is going to drill all of these words into my head, otherwise I will continue to struggle with them.
There are so many different types of grammar! In school I was obviously taught traditional grammar. I found it annoying sometimes, but I’m thankful for it now. Cognitive grammar seems kind of obvious in some respects. Of course everyone makes mistakes when they speak, and the older you get the less mistakes you will make. The psychology aspect of transformational-generative grammar was interesting. I did not fully comprehend the importance of the phase-structure grammar. Chomsky stated, “ . . . that phase-structure grammar was inadequate because it failed to explain and describe even simple sentences and because it failed to provide a theory of language” (199). I suppose if something did not work, then all that is important is to understand why it didn’t work. Overall, I don’t see anything wrong with traditional grammar. Personally, I felt like traditional grammar is the most beneficial; however, I’m not sure if that is what Williams wanted me to think. I'm never sure what he wants me to think. He is a tricky man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)