Grammar Has Friends

If there is anything that I took away from the first few chapters of Weaver's text, it would have to be that grammar is not effectively learned in isolation from its buddies writing and reading.

Weaver claims that "[t]eaching grammar for its own sake is never the aim" (2).  I agree for a couple of reasons.  First of all, it has been proven to be ineffective.  Weaver cites a variety of studies that show that lessons taught in isolated grammar instruction are usually discarded and forgotten by students as soon as the recall necessary for exams or the essay at hand is completed.  The assessment grade is recorded, the lesson checked off, and everyone moves onto the next topic.  Instead, Weaver advocates a repetitive study of grammar that comes alive through authentic writing.  Instead of spending a week on condensing sentences and then the next week on the proper usages of the colon and semicolon, Weaver argues that students should engage in these techniques as they come across them in their writing.

The learn-by-doing (or hands-on) approach has proven to be very effective in a variety of disciplines.  So, why is grammar left out?

 We also need to reform grammar instruction by making it mean something to our students.  Traditionally, grammar has been taught as a set of rules.  I prefer Weaver's idea that grammar is a box of tools that can be used to enrich and enhance writing.  This shift in perspective transforms grammar from a looming force that lords over every scratch of the student's pen to a freedom of opportunities that the student controls to express and communicate his or her thoughts and ideas.  Grammar becomes positive and - dare I say it?! - even exciting and fun!

Weaver continues this idea by explaining that grammar should be a focus on how words function.  In our every day life outside of the English classroom, we do not beat parts of sentences to pieces but instead work to structure words effectively and meaningfully.  So what we need to impart to our students is the importance of grammatical structure.

Linda M. Christensen's article "Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?" explores this topic.  (I read Christensen's article last semester, and I encourage you to look it up!)  Christensen states:

"Asking my students to memorize the rules without asking who makes the rules, who enforces the rules, who benefits from the rules, who loses from the rules, who uses the rules to keep some in and keep others out legitimates a social system that devalues my students' knowledge and language. Teaching the rules without reflection also under-scores that it's okay for others-"authorities"-to dictate something as fundamental and as personal as the way they speak" (40).

We must overcome the rational that students must learn Standard American English (SAE) because the textbooks or administration or parents say that they must.  Instead, we must be able to explain both to ourselves, our students, and the rest of the world why SAE needs to be applied and when it needs to be applied.

Last semester, I was prompted to examine my position on enforcing "proper English" over student vernacular.  As Weaver and Christensen demonstrate (and contrary to popular belief), they can coexist!  Weaver advocates that there is no "right" grammar, but rather "only appropriate grammar and effective writing, for different audiences and purposes" (44).

This is further reflected in the Mark Larson's suggestion to "help [students] recognize the place standard English, among other language variations, holds in the array of devices we humans find to 'give voice accurately and fully to ourselves and our sense of the world'" (Weaver 41).

This thought is further enhanced by Christensen: "When more attention is paid to the way some-thing is written or said than to what is said, stu-dents' words and thoughts become devalued. Stu-dents learn to be silent, to give as few words as possible for teacher criticism. Students must be taught to hold their own voices sacred, to ignore the teachers who have made them feel that what they've said is wrong or bad or stupid. Students must be taught how to lis-ten to the knowledge they've stored up but which they are seldom asked to relate" (37).

Again, I ask: Why are we teaching what we're teaching?  Do we teach grammar so that students can fill out worksheets to be able to involuntarily identify active and passive voices?  Or do we teach grammar so that students are able to effectively and meaningfully structure their thoughts into words to foster stronger expression and communication?

An additional metaphor, if you will, on standardizing grammar and, thus, standardizing students:



English: The NeverEnding Story

Languages tell stories.  This is so fascinating because, as Scott Lehigh states, language is a "living, organic form of expression."  Roberts' survey of the history of English demonstrates that a study of the language actually provides a record of the events that once surrounded its creation.  The construction of the English language reflects the rise and fall of peoples and empires.  It is not just the meaning of the words that translates these events but the evolution of the actual physical make-up of words and grammar rules.  Just another example of form mirroring content.  Therefore, as the world has changed (society, technology, etc.) language has also morphed.  Mainly, this is done in order to fit the communicative needs of society, but it also leaves behind an ever-evolving record of human history.

Roberts introduced the idea that the "grammatical description that applied to Latin was removed and superimposed on English."  Bryson fleshes this out further in his article, explaining that English grammar's "rules and terminology are based on Latin," which happens to be a completely separate and distinct language.  This is news to me!  While I have often encountered strange and seemingly random rules of grammar, I merely wrote these off as natural results of a language whose evolution has been such a mish mash of languages.  Indeed, Bryson's article was full of very witty and enlightening examples of the "resplendent silliness" that can be found in the English language.

Bryson further discussed academies that sprang up to control and define the English language as scholars believed that the language was essentially overgrowing its limits.  However, as Bryson and Lehigh touched upon, language has been changing since the dawn of its creation.  To suppose that we have landed upon the most pure and perfect version of what we currently know as English is just presumptuous.  Lehigh explores modern changes in language, noting that older generations have admitted difficulties understanding the "youthspeak" that has developed over the past couple of decades alone.  As history has demonstrated, changes in language are inevitable.  Is it really necessary to be so uptight about language as to establish "Grammar Nazis" to document and enforce the "right" way to use language?

Thus, we should not be too concerned if language continues to evolve as we speak.  However, it is not that simple.  Everything seems to be developing and changing with more rapidity than ever before.  Population and technology are two examples that have had exponential inclines in the past fifty decades.  Language has followed the same pattern.  New words are created to match new inventions and actions.  Similarly, the uses of words are evolving as well.  Nouns are becoming verbs and verbs are becoming nouns.  Language is becoming as fast-paced as everything else in our crazy world.  So, is it possible that language will be changing so rapidly that effective communication becomes obsolete?  It's dubious, but there is no denying that there needs to be some foundation for a language that also leaves room for it to evolve.  The difficulty falls in determining where that line falls.