Grammar revolution: reflections

By Sandra Mikalsen

This blog entry is based on the documentary film “Grammar Revolution”. First I will explain the difference between descriptivism and prescriptivism before taking a look at why grammar instructions faded away in the US schools. Then I will convey the arguments against grammar and for grammar teaching, before finally share some of my personal opinion about grammar teaching.

To linguists, grammar is referred to as the rules that makes up our subconscious systems, which they want to describe – thus the term descriptivism. For other people, grammar is about following prescribed rules of a certain way of speaking and writing, called Standard English – thus the term prescriptivism. In the US schools, grammar instructions started to fade away after the progressive education movement began back in the early 20^th century. It became more common to have a practical view on the use of education, where the practical use of a particular topic decided whether it was worth teaching to the children. Also, the role of the teacher and the students changed from the teacher being an authority person, to the teacher being equal with the students and allowing them space to grow and make decisions for themselves. 6-year-olds designed their own curriculum and decided what they should study. 

Some of the arguments against grammar instruction that was mentioned in the film, was that it makes the children confused and frustrated, and is a waste of time. Some even feared that it would inhibit the self-expression of kids, and that the use of the dreaded “red pen” could damage children’s self-esteem. Others claimed that the creation and use of Standard English is only about maintaining power structures. 

On the other hand, some of the arguments for grammar teaching were about universal understanding and that grammar could actually be inspiring for children who are found of logical thinking. This is because grammar has a logical structure and can be seen as a logical pattern - just like in mathematics. A teacher in the film also claimed that grammar could empower students to feel enable to articulate and communicate themselves more clearly, and that it gives them a vocabulary for talking about language. The same teacher also believed that there are no contradiction between giving students correction and guidance, and allowing them self-expression. Students would actually feel more confident in expressing themselves, and felt proud to know how to structure a sentence.  

In my opinion, grammar instructions are necessary for enabling universal understanding and to be able to convey our (public) opinion properly without misunderstanding. Yet I think it is important to give children the necessary space to make them comfortable in expressing themselves whenever they feel like it, but also being comfortable in receiving correction from time to time.

Grammar revolution by Heidi Alida

This blog post is about the documentary “grammar revolution” who presents two types of grammar, descriptive and prescriptive grammar. Linguists use grammar to refer to the rules that make up our subconscious systems. The other group, most people refer to grammar as the rules of a particular way of speaking and writing English. Linguists have the knowledge to describe these subconscious rules, while most people just want to follow prescribed rules.

Moving away from explicit grammar teaching began with changing the teacher’s role in the classroom. Teaching went from traditional to progressive. In “grammar revolution” they give arguments both for and against explicit grammar teaching. The ones arguing against explicit grammar teaching believe that it can hurt the student’s self-esteem. The people for grammar teaching are using the same argument, but in a different way. They believe it is good for the students to learn explicit grammar, and that correcting them when they are wrong, will give them even better self-esteem when they succeed. This because they now are more conscious about how hard they have tried to make it right. Another argument for the grammar teaching is that it is valuable for the students to know witch tools they are using to make a correct sentence. If students know the tools, and that what they are doing are correct, it will make the writing a lot easier. And it will also help them get a vocabulary for talking about language.

My own experience is that I have always struggled working with grammar, and I had to use a lot of time on it. Most of the time it ended up being drilling the day before I had a test, and right after it the knowledge would be gone again. If this were how the grammar teaching would turn out to be, I don’t know if it is something I would choose to use time on for my students. But if I am able to change the grammar teaching to be more meaningful for the students, and help them achieve metalinguistic awareness instead of just memorizing the rules I would be more positive for it. This because when students achieve metalinguistic awareness they do not only know the rules behind the language, they know why we have them and how we can use them. It could be the same in learning English.

Reflections on documentary film "Grammar Revolution" by David & Elizabeth O'Brien (2014)

In this blog entry, I will reflect on the documentary “Grammar Revolution”, and some of the issues that the film highlights.

Descriptive grammar is a term used to describe what grammar is through a linguist’s perspective, namely to describe the rules and underlying systems that make up human languages, without a normative mission. Prescriptive grammar is what grammar is when seen from a popular perspective. There is a standard form of a language, seen as the correct way of speaking or writing. In this colloquial sense of the term, one may speak of good and bad grammar.

Explicit grammar instruction in US schools has declined, according to “Grammar Revolution”, since the progressive educational movement gained strength in the early 20^th century. In contrast to the traditional teaching situation, the progressive teacher would not function as an omniscient instructor, but rather be a guide in the students’ more self-directed and collaborative path to education and development. Telling students that what they wrote were right or wrong was not discouraged, and the importance of grammatical comprehension was seen as a less significant area on which to focus, as well as a too complicated subject. Teachers were rather encouraged to nourish the students’ creativity.

Being able to express oneself in a clear and eloquent matter, and write correctly and correct one’s grammatical mistakes in accordance to a standard English form, is something that students often will find gratifying. Students who enjoy systems they might get a greater enjoyment out of English and languages in general, if they are taught that all languages can be systematized and explained in accordance to a set of underlying rules and systems. To understand that all words in a sentence, have a grammatical function, and is related to the other words in a specific way, can give the students a better understanding of one’s own language. It can also be a great help when learning a foreign language. Furthermore, one simply cannot correct a student’s paper in accordance to the Standard English rules, if the student lacks metalinguistic awareness. They need to know why, not just what, something is grammatically incorrect.

In my opinion, the students need, at the very least, to acquire a certain degree of metalinguistic understanding, and be able to talk about language and its functions. To know the “eight parts of speech”, meaning to be able to categorize all words in one of eight word classes, is something that I think is important for the students to learn. When it comes to acquisition of a second language, explicit grammar instruction is, I would say, unavoidable, based on the lack of a natural connection to the language.

Grammar Revolution: reflections

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.