This message was originally submitted by
[log in to unmask]
to the ATEG
---------------------------------
To 'grammar' or not to 'grammar'?
Why, both, of course. Just not at the same time.
What is necessary is to distinguish between teaching language use (writing,
reading, etc.) and teaching about language (which is linguistics).
When teaching writing, reading etc., writing, reading must be taught. When
teaching linguistics, rules about what language is, how it functions, etc.
must be taught. We learn what we do. It is that simple.
Knowledge of language (use) and knowledge about language are stored in
different regions of the brain. There does not seem to be much
collaboration between the two. Thus teaching about appositions and things
won't influence the actual writing process. Writing must be learned through
writing. There is no other way.
This applies to both foreign language teaching and the teaching of the
mother tongue. I've done both, and tried innumerable ways (with and without
'grammar') and there is no practical doubt that teaching lingustics
(however well done, however simple) with the goal of supporting the use of
language is a waste of time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater of linguistics, on the contrary I love
it, I teach it even - to teacher trainees, because language teachers need
linguistics as a lesson planning tool. I also find it essential to teach
linguistics in schools because everybody should know more about language
than just that there are words; also because linguistics, when taught
properly, can develop the thinking skills.
But these are different objectives. The language teacher's objectives and
the linguistics teacher's objectives should not be made into a mixture.
As for teaching grammar when a problem crops up - that again is something
different and should not be confused with linguistics and linguistics
teaching. It has to do with metacommunication. Metacommunication is
communication about the communication situation. We metacommunicate
whenever a communication problem arises. By discussing the problem we try
to pin it down so we can repair it. This is unsystematic, usually takes
seconds only, and immediately after we plunge back into the communication
situation proper. Grammar rules taught in this situation certainly should
not be taught systematically, the teacher would be trying to answer
questions that no one has asked and no one is interested in and therefore
no one would learn anything from it. It would mean turning
metacommunication into a linguistics lesson - a waste of time.
------------
Or are y'all arguing about educating professional writers? That would be an
altogether different matter. A professional writer would have to be an
expert in language and linguistics and literature and in a lot more. He
would have to know about 'horses' and 'riders' and 'stables' and so on,
unlike the child who sits on the dog or the cat.
And as to the biology teacher who teaches the names of bones - his
objective is to teach ABOUT things, not do things (like growing a new leg).
The biology teacher must be compared to the linguist, not to the language
teacher.
------
My pfennig's worth ...
B. Leuschner
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Burkhard Leuschner - Paedagogische Hochschule Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany
E-mail: [log in to unmask] [h] Fax: +49 7383 2212
|
