Did you mention also that contemporary teachers of English seem to feel very
ill at ease about their hold on grammatical terminology and theory?

==Reinhold

"William J. McCleary" wrote:

> >
> >I really don't understand the reluctance of our profession to help our
> >students learn labels for the grammatical structures we expect them to
> >manipulate.  We are the only discipline that shies away from giving our
> >students a language with which to discuss what they're working with.  We
> >humans learn what the world is all about when we learn to label its parts.
> >
> >
> >Martha
>
> I've thought a lot about the issue of why we have grown so reluctant to
> teach grammar and its terminology. I think it stems from two  related
> reasons. The first is that teaching grammar has not proved useful in
> improving students' writing--which was, for many teachers, the only
> justification for teaching it in the first place. Second, and certainly
> related, is that many (perhaps most) teachers have failed in their attempts
> to teach students enough grammar to make it useful. Grammar, I would say,
> is remarkably resistant to being taught. Furthermore, there is little point
> in teaching labels for concepts that most students do not and, perhaps,
> cannot understand.
>
> I realize that these claims are controversial and will immediately be
> disputed. I could supply a modest bit of evidence to support them, and I
> could also point out that other subjects, such as math, are also resistant
> to being taught. But let me forge ahead into exploring why grammar is so
> hard to teach.
>
> Some reasons are well accepted. For example, many teachers and textbooks
> still rely upon unscientific and inaccurate explanations of grammatical
> concepts, and many claims made about grammatical concepts are downright
> untrue. That would certainly interfere with learning.
>
> Another theory is that many students lack what is called "language
> awareness." Until students learn to pay attention to language as an object,
> the theory goes, they will be unable to learn concepts about language.
>
> Yet another explanation is that students simply find grammar uninteresting
> and unworthy of their attention. In other words, they lack motivation for
> learning. To them, grammar is a lot of work for no payoff. (Again, sort of
> like learning algebra.)
>
> Another explanation is "use it or lose it." That is, unless students
> encounter grammatical concepts and terminology in their reading and
> conversation, they are unlikely to remember even the little bit of
> knowledge they have acquired. Since teachers of other subjects seldom know
> enough grammar to use it even when it would be applicable (a situation akin
> to math phobia), students won't encounter enough applications of grammar to
> retain it. Maybe we need Grammar Across the Curriculum (or GAC).
>
> However, I suspect that none of these reasons is adequate to explain fully
> why grammar is so hard to teach. My theory is that grammatical concepts are
> a unique combination of visual, aural, motor, and linguistic elements that
> our teaching methods are inadequate to address. In comparison understanding
> a concept like photosynthesis is easy.
>
> Furthermore, even our labels for grammatical concepts are problems. If you
> understand the morphemes in the word "photosynthesis" (which is not hard to
> do), that helps you understand and remember the concept behind the term. By
> contrast, words like "adjective" and "preposition" are no help whatsoever.
> It's not that the words aren't made up of meaningful morphemes; it's that
> meanings are either unknown or unhelpful to students. The terms can only be
> memorized, and what must be memorized is easily forgotten.
>
> In the end, if teachers cannot successfully teach grammar, and if the
> labels used for grammatical concepts fail to help them in the teaching, it
> is little wonder that so many are reluctant to teach either the concepts or
> the terminology.
>
> Bill
>
> William J. McCleary
> 3247 Bronson Hill Road
> Livonia, NY 14487
> 716-346-6859