|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Many people have told me that grammar is no longer taught in primary or secondary schools and that it should be. Is this true? Or is some kind of grammar, different from what was taught in decades past, being taught? I don't know, but I am tired of arguing about it. What I would like to know is what these people think grammar is and how it can be taught to seven to 18 year-olds.
I think of grammar as a set of rules for using a particular language. For me grammar consists of various sub-fields of study: phonology (the sounds used by a language), morphology (the basic units of meaning, which can be lexical items, i.e., words, or smaller bits, e.g., affixes), and syntax (how the various units of meaning are put together to form grammatical phrases or sentences). I do not think of orthography as a part of grammar. That is spelling and punctuation, which should be taught, are just not a part of grammar for me or most linguists I have talked with or read.
The vague notion of grammar I get from non-linguists is a good deal of parsing (i.e., parts of speech assignment to words in a sentence) and diagramming (that is a method of drawing a sentence on a chalk board or piece of paper that gives some limited information on a constituent's part of speech (e.g., noun, verb) and syntactic function (e.g., subject, predicate). Thrown in here are also some spelling and punctuation "rules" and a good deal of what I would call usage "rules".
In particular, I'd like to know if anybody can name a good pedagogical grammar of English for use by native speakers. Also, I'd like a run-down of what particular set of parts of speech should be used and where that set came from. By fiat, by analysis? I find that when I try to explain my notion of grammar to the pro-grammar group of non-linguists, we very soon become aware that each group is using a totally different terminology to speak.
[Fixed stupid typo; that's grammars for teaching native speakers.]
Last edited by zmjezhd; 06/22/12 07:09 PM.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,075
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,075 |
I'm fairly sure that grammar is no longer formally taught in English primary schools. The idea seems to be that one picks up grammar by osmosis, as you learn to speak. But as the role models are often ill-educated "celebs" and sports stars* and young teachers who have, themselves, never been formally taight grammar, solecisms of all sorts are perpetuated.
As a text book, I have always relied on Fowler - whether he is suitable for people for whom English is a second language, I don't know.
*(not all celebs and sprots stars are ill-educated, of course, but a fair few are - they have been taughtnin prin=mary schools which don't teach grammar!!)
I'm immortal until proven otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,944 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,944 Likes: 3 |
Listen to the average NFL player interview and see if they
are taught English by any standard.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 37 |
"Grammar" for me, and I think for zjmezhd, is not something that is formally taught to native speakers. My 6-year-old niece can produce completely normal sentences, and she is not being taught grammar in school. She has an incredibly good unconscious knowledge of the grammar of English. She knows that subjects precede verbs, that verbs are marked for past tense and present tense third person singular, she understands the complicated ways of forming English questions. Here are some other examples: Why is 2 ok 1 I gave a present to him. 2 I gave him a present. but 4 is not? 3 I explained the problem to him. 4 *I explained him the problem. Why is the position of adverbs in a sentence relatively free, but we can't put the adverb between the verb and the object? 5 I explained the problem to him clearly. 6 I clearly explained the problem to him. 7 I explained the problem clearly to him. 8 *I explained clearly the problem to him. In these sentences 9 When I get home, he will be cooking dinner. 10 *When I will get home, he will be cooking dinner. both clauses describe events in the future, but the verb in the when clause cannot take will. Why? But "grammar" to many people means something completely different. It means all the prescriptions that separate the in-group from the out-group: object-position "you and I", stranded prepositions, "who/whom", "which/that", etc, things that form a very small part of the grammar that native speakers carry in their heads. It's often claimed that lack of education in this grammar will lead to confusion or linguistic anarchy. But these things that have nothing to do with comprehensibility and everything to do with social divisions.
Last edited by gooofy; 06/22/12 05:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
As a text book, I have always relied on Fowler - whether he is suitable for people for whom English is a second language, I don't know.
By Fowler, I assume you mean A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by H W Fowler (1926). (Although there are later editions edited by folks other than Fowler.) As its title implies, it is a book on usage and not grammar. There is also, the lesser well known today, The King's English by H W and F G Fowler (1906). It has more grammar in it, but still has a lot of what I call style (usage). I personally like Fowler (I was introduced to him in high school), but his usage dictionary is getting a little long in the tooth. It's nearly a hundred years old and English, even British English, has changed greatly in that time.
Ill-educated people tend to speak the language (dialect) they learned, and they speak it grammatically. And, I agree with Goofy: children learn almost the entirety of their first language grammar by age 7, which is pretty much before primary school. What they may learn in school, if they are lucky enough to go to school, is a tiny subset of the grammar of the privileged dialect (i.e., the standard language) of their area. I don't watch much sports, but I don't know if I want them speaking formal English.
Again, I am asking for English grammars for teaching native speakers of English the standard.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 37 |
In particular, I'd like to know if anybody can name a good pedagogical grammar of English for use by non-native speakers. I've heard good things about the new Oxford Grammar from Bas Aarts. A Student's Grammar of English by Huddleston and Pullum might be good for advanced students.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
no idea, as to a teaching grammar; but just reading is a splendid guide. to wit, “I remember once,” Cara told him, “who was it? Sister Modeste. She wrote on the board: What if they should never have united themselves in that, over there?" Cara had started to laugh, remembering the moment. "Panic! Se joindre, a homicidal verb. It's much simpler in Spanish. And then my friend Francesca, after the sister wrote out the answer, leaned across the aisle and whispered, 'Well, I'm certainly glad I know how to say that!'" 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
What if they should never have united themselves in that, over there? What does should mean in this sentence?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
no idea, as to a teaching grammar; but just reading is a splendid guide. to wit,
Yeah, sure. As I said elsewhere, but will reiterate here: the onliest way to figure out that grammar thing is to read and write ... That is the descriptivist agenda.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
Thanks for this conversation. In fact in makes me realize that for native language we did not have grammar lessons as such. All we had was something called 'sentence analyzing'/ 'sentence building', spelling and punctuation. I have put this all under the heading 'grammar'. Unlike your understanding of grammar it seems.
(For the foreing languages we definitely had separate grammar books, textbooks and word lists. No images or diagrams however).
To Gooofy, of course it makes a difference whether a child from birth till school age is put in front of a television all day or is read bedtime and daytime books by its parents with all the fun and accompanying discussions.
Anyway, thanks from a non native speaker. (for the links etc.)
the onliest way to figure out that grammar thing is to read and write ... I hope so, I mean, a hard task when young people read little and less.
Last edited by BranShea; 06/23/12 06:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,809
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
1,031
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
