By Eirin Jensen
With basis in the documentary “Grammar Revolution”, I will discuss the
difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, why grammar
instruction has faded away, arguments against and for grammar instructions, and
my own personal opinion about grammar teaching.
Descriptive and prescriptive grammar are different in the sense of which
rules one follow. In descriptivism one follows subconscious rules, whereas in
prescriptivism the Standard English prescribe the rules. Descriptivism focuses on how the language is
used, rather than the correct way to write/say things. According to “Grammar
Revolution”, grammar instruction has faded away. One of the arguments by
teachers who are against grammar instruction, is that they are afraid of
stigmatization and criticism of the identity of the children, and that it
inhibits self-expression. The reason for this is that Standard English is
looked upon as the proper English, the correct way to speak and write. In that
way, teaching grammar may confuse and frustrate children because it is
artificial since it is taught outside a context. Those who are against grammar
instruction has the idea that the children learn grammar through reading, and
that the focus should be on the content and usage, and not how something is said.
Arguments for grammar teaching are mainly focusing on giving children a
clear, articulate way of communication. They also achieve a conceptual vocabulary
to discuss language, and in that way they can discuss structure in a sentence
and seeing them as units and parts of speech. A better understanding of a
language may empower children and give them self-esteem and a confident
expression.
I think grammar teaching is very important in Norwegian, but when
teaching Norwegians English I would probably use a descriptive approach. I
think learning a second language is easier to learn and understand if you use
it in communication and focus on how the language is used. Early grammar instruction
is important because it enriches the grammar vocabulary and the understanding
of how a language is built up.
Besides, I cannot expect good grammar from my future pupils if I have
not taught it to them.
Today we communicate via different social media and short text-messages, and in my opinion this gives the language an oral touch with incomplete sentences and often misunderstandings. To achieve a clear and articulate communication and to avoid misunderstanding, it is necessary with prescribed rules. In primary schools I think the best would be to find the golden mean and create a balance in grammar instruction and content focus, so that the children's self-expression is preserved and at the same time they get the confidence of an effective, clear expression.
Today we communicate via different social media and short text-messages, and in my opinion this gives the language an oral touch with incomplete sentences and often misunderstandings. To achieve a clear and articulate communication and to avoid misunderstanding, it is necessary with prescribed rules. In primary schools I think the best would be to find the golden mean and create a balance in grammar instruction and content focus, so that the children's self-expression is preserved and at the same time they get the confidence of an effective, clear expression.
I like your line about how you can't expect good grammar from your pupils if you haven't taught them grammar. I also agree with you on the prescribed rules part, where it's needed to achieve a clear and articulate communication to avoid a misunderstanding.
SvarSlettHi! I like how you look at the difference teaching a first and a second language, and that grammar might be more necessary in the children's first language. I also agree with you that it might be a good idea to find the golden mean when teaching children.
SvarSlettI like that you mention preserving the child's self-expression, which can soon be lost when speaking in a foreign language. I also like your comment on how today's use of English is largely through social media, and therefore affectsthe student's written englis English in a more colloquial direction.
SvarSlettGood point about the social media and technology affecting how we use language nowadays. With limited time spent for English in schools, children might pick up English randomly in the environment around them, and internet is likely to be one of the main sources where they hear and see English, the form of which might often be simplified and colloquial. Teaching grammar might help them clean up random, unorganized input they get to the extent that their output is not so far from what's "acceptable" in English. I don't think we should be concerned so much about teaching "standard" English as a second language learner. "Standard" to natives means perfectionism according to the rules set by grammarians, which are often subject to violation in real communication. All we want to achieve in learning English is to be able to communicate effectively, i.e. without causing communication breakdown or misunderstanding. What do you think this would imply in teaching grammar?
SvarSlettVery good point about finding a balance between form and meaning. We would want pupils to focus on producing correct forms of English (via grammar instruction) but at the same time we would also want to give them meaningful contexts where they can apply their grammatical knowledge in order to practice and internalize it. The question is "how". :)