Grammar Revolution

This blog entry discusses my reflections on the movie “grammar revolution». I will try to explain the concepts “descriptivism” and “prescriptivism” and look at the pros and cons of explicit grammar instruction. 

Descriptivism is about describing and analyzing how a language is spoken whereas prescriptivism is about standardized and formal “rules” of a language. The movie discusses grammar education in light of these concepts, presenting them as contradictions. If you look at grammar education with descriptive eyes, you tend to value the variety of spoken language and the child’s freedom of literary expression. Prescriptivists are more concerned with standardizing the child’s language towards the “correct written form” and values explicit grammar instruction.

The movie uses these contradictions to reflect on the pros and cons of explicit grammar instruction in schools, stating that this type of education has decreased. According to the movie, this has to do with the progressivist movement in schools which better coincides with descriptivism rather than prescriptivism. The progressive teacher works as a facilitator of learning, helping the children develop their knowledge and understanding of the world. He or she is not supposed to be an authority, and should not tell children that they are wrong. It is argued that to correct grammatical errors could threaten a child’s self-esteem, either by making them feel inadequate or by suggesting that their way of speaking is less valued than the standardized English language.

Other arguments presented in the movie concerns the necessity of explicit grammar instruction. Primarily, it addresses a misperception that the standardized language of today is some type of sacred language handed down from ancient times. This is not true; the language is constantly changing based on its usage. That means that the current generation will also be influencing the standardized language. Why can they not write as they please then? In my opinion, the objective of grammar instruction has to be to help children better communicate and better understand a language. Learning explicit and standardized grammar will help the children to view the language at a metalevel, and make them aware of the structures that creates meaning. It is also useful for communicating internationally. No matter what language we are discussing, having and knowing some set of literary rules will ease the communication process in a global society.

When I start teaching English as a second language in Norway, it will be important to me that the children feel safe to express themselves without feeling stupid. I will teach explicit grammar and I will correct student’s errors, but I want the children to understand that communication is in focus and credit what they are mastering. I actually consider myself a progressivist, but do not think that explicit grammar instruction collides with the values of this learning theory. To me it is not a question of teaching or not teaching grammar, it is a question of how to teach grammar.