- How should we teach grammar?
Descriptivism is term that is used to describe and analyse how a language is spoken, especially in peoples everyday. Descriptivism is examining how language and grammar is ever changing and dependent on the environment and culture. According to the movie “Grammar revolution” most linguists acknowledge themselves as descriptivists. On the other hand the viewer is introduced to the term prescriptivism, which is a contrasting approach to grammar teaching and usage. While descriptivism is more concerned with how the language is used daily, prescriptivism pays more attention to how the language should be used. For that reason a teacher following this approach would focus on giving the students explicit guidelines for how they should begin their sentences. The focus would be on memorization and to standardize the students English, instead of getting a conceptual understanding of the grammar structure. A teacher following a descriptive approach would on the contrary urging the students to find multiple alternatives, and tell them to observe how the structure changes.
The movie states that prescriptive ways of teaching grammar have faded, which has to do with the progressevist movement. Progressivism focuses on the practical use of grammar, which is more similar to the descriptivsm. This will give the students a more conceptual understanding of grammar and providing them with a language about their language. The students will in theory be more motivated when they understand the practical usage of grammar. The teacher´s role is to be a mentor and give the student’s guidance, rather than being an authority that directly transmits information to the students. A prescriptive approach is in contrary, intended to train the students skills in standard English, which by many linguists recognised as the key to succeed in society. From my point of view I will have to agree with the linguists stating that explicit grammar teaching is the right path;
“It empowers the students to feel that they can be clear and articulate and communicate effectively. It provides the students with a vocabulary that allows them to describe their own language”.
When I was thought grammar through drills and exercises I didn’t see the practical use of grammar. Hey, I am able to communicate in Norwegian why should I learn about nouns and adverb? I found it really boring and subsequently I skipped many of the Norwegian classes. I can imagine that a lot of young students to have the very same attitude towards explicit grammar teaching today. It might be more exciting if the children conceptual understanding through practical experiences from the real world. Additionally I must emphasise that I believe prescriptivism makes a valid point underling the importance of standard English. In todays modern society most citizens are members of different social groups, and should therefore adjust their language thereafter.
Hi Bendik. I like your idea about letting the children explore grammar and developing an conceptual understanding through practical experience. I believe children learn better by doing practical tasks.
SvarSlettHi Bendik. I agree with you on the fact that students should explore grammar through practical experience from the real world. This would be a good way to learn, especially for the students who learn most from "learning by doing".
SvarSlettSome good writing here Bendik! Are you the next Hemmingway? I found your explanation of the difference between prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar to be very clear. I also agree that many pupils will find explicit grammar education boring, and that they need exercises that are closer to the real world.
SvarSlettDenne kommentaren har blitt fjernet av forfatteren.
SvarSlettVery good point about the struggle and frustration that most learners might face when it comes to explicit grammar teaching, especially when they think that they have no problem with communicating in that particular language. Language is one of the tools that we use to communicate, so communication should be the main purpose of learning the language, not the other way around (i.e., learning the grammar itself should not the main purpose). I suppose the communicative usage is what you meant by practical usage of grammar? Great description of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar, but I don´t think the film has talked about two different teaching approaches based on these two different notions of grammar. The two notions of grammar were mentioned to illustrate one of the reasons why explicit grammar teaching has faded away. That is, grammar teaching is typically based on a standard language with prescriptive grammar, but the question is how one defines "the standard language" when there exist different varieties/dialects of English in reality and different norms and rules are accepted depending on which dialect one speaks. It was believed that teaching grammar (admittedly, the standard/prescriptive grammar) creates negative/undesirable prejudice about non-standard English(es), and teaching prescriptive grammar does not reflect the real linguistic situation where languages constantly change over time. I guess your last point is in favor of the view that the standardized grammar is needed in teaching English. It would have made your argument more convincing if you had elaborated little further on why learning the standard grammar is important. Any afterthoughts? :)
SvarSlett