This is a long message -- I apologize, but request that you read it.
Over several sessions? I especially ask teachers in middle and high
school to read it, or at least skip to the end and read the last paragraph.
It seems that we keep going around and around the same questions on this
list: does teaching grammar do any good? Is it similar to 2nd-language learning?
As interesting as the ape issue is, I don't think we need to concern
ourselves with it. The issues we face are complex enough without adding
that layer.
I'd really like to settle some basic issues. There still seems to be a
basic difference among people on the list about the purpose of teaching
grammar: do we teach grammar as a fix-it strategy -- students either
avoid or fix errors in standard English, and they are brought to the
ability to do this through explicit grammar instruction? Or do we see
grammar instruction as instrumental in _bringing students to fluency in
written standard English_, especially the 'good' kind that is found in
sophisticated high-school and college-level papers?
I believe explicit grammar instruction can be of _some_ help in the
first aim -- grammar as fix-it. But I am not convinced that fix-it
grammar instruction carries over to students' writing, even to their
editing phase. I am much less confident that it is of any use for the
second. I also see the second as the more valuable goal, for it will
result in students who, when they write formally, do not need to have an
active 'monitor' (that little homunculus who monitors one's grammatical
output when one is using a variety of language that one has limited
fluency in). Students who find formal writing effortful in this way are
not likely to become fluent and advanced writers. And writing alone, and
grammar teaching alone, will not be enough to develop fluency. Students
must also read generous amounts of the kind of writing they are expected
to produce, and they must reach a level of comfort with that kind of
reading that makes it productive rather than effortful. It must be a
level of comfort with reading that allows their language acquisition
device to internalize rules without conscious attention -- rules which
can then be employed without conscious thought in formal writing.
What I am saying is that formal written standard English can't be
learned; it can only be ACQUIRED, in the sense that that distinction is
used in the ESL field: 'learning' means consciously learning grammar
rules and then applying them in use; acquisition means unconsciously
internalizing grammar rules through generous exposure and through the
constant need to communicate using those rules. All of my experience
with second-language learning and teaching, as well as my linguistics
training, and now my experience with college students' writing,
convinces me that explicit rule-learning, while of some value in helping
learners understand the language system they are trying to master,
cannot do the whole job. None of us fluent academic writers was EVER
taught all of the grammatical rules of the formal English we write, let
alone the principles that guide use of those rules in creating a
coherent text. No grammar book used in schools contains all of these
rules. My fluency in German came, not with 7 years of training in high
school and college, but with 2 added years of residence in Germany. When
I came back from Germany, I realized that I subconsciously knew rules of
German that I had never been taught. I'm not saying the 7 years of
explicit instruction were a waste of time, but at the end of those 7
years, my use of German -- reading, writing, comprehending -- was
extremely effortful (and I'm good at languages). After 2 years in
country, I could read most anything and write good officialese. I had a
very similar experience with French -- a few years in college left me
pretty helpless, but daily use of French for 4 years in North Africa
increased my abilities dramatically, with no additional formal
instruction at all.
The students we get who have trouble writing well are students who have
had limited exposure to and limited motivation for learning formal
written English. Formal written English is a second dialect to them.
Learning to parse sentences and learning to find and fix 'errors' of
subject/verb agreement or (as Paul Doniger points out) use of 'less' in
front of countable plurals _might_ help them effortfully produce papers
that are relatively free of such problems. But it will not equip them to
write fluently.
You must be asking yourself by now "Well then why does this woman
advocate grammar teaching?!?" I advocate it because it provides that
vocabulary for talking about writing that several listers have
mentioned. I also advocate it because, if started at an early enough
age, it cultivates language awareness -- the ability to stand outside of
one's linguistic output and be able to evaluate and manipulate its
effects. I also advocate it because I believe that people need to
understand how language works as an aspect of the basic science of human
behavior and human social interaction -- language is the medium through
which virtually ALL human interaction is mediated, and profoundly
reflects thought and culture. And I advocate it because it cultivates
analytical skills useful in many realms of thinking. I don't advocate it
as a means of bringing kids to fluency in standard English. I don't
think grammar instruction can do this!
To me the essential components of a curriculum that will produce fluent
writers of formal English in late high school and college are, from the
earlier grades:
(1) Generous reading at age-appropriate levels of complexity.
(2) Generous opportunities to produce standard English in written and
oral contexts of REAL communication, not 'practice'.
I firmly believe that, without these two, fluency in formal English will
not be achieved without extraordinary effort. I see grammar teaching as
a valuable addition to this basic curriculum. But the grammar curriculum
currently being used is not workable, for reasons so many have cited on
this list:
-its definitions and rules are not accurate enough;
-its methodology is negative and discouraging rather than positive and
rewarding;
-it is not coordinated with children's cognitive readiness;
-the relation between grammar, meaning, and coherent information flow is
not included;
-it perpetuates misunderstanding of variation in language, thereby
perpetuating language-based prejudice and children's profound
misunderstanding of their own linguistic abilities. (This last isn't
fluff -- these misunderstandings lead to significant motivation blocks
in reading and writing, lowered teacher expectations, incorrect
diagnosis of needs for special education, etc.)
These assessments are based on my examination of most of the
grammar-teaching packages approved for use in the California public
schools K-12, as well as numerous pedagogical grammars designed for
college students and adults.
Now, let's suppose I'm right about all this :) . What does it mean for
grammar instruction at the college level? Can fluency in formal written
English be achieved in college if a student doesn't have it already? If
so, how much time has to be devoted to cultivating it? What, besides
grammar, is necessary to achieve it?
If college is too late, then how far 'back' do we need to reach? Can
fluency be cultivated starting, say, in 7th or 8th grade? As late as
9th? 10th? And if college IS too late, then what do college teachers of
writing/grammar do?
And, if I am right about all this, what are the implications for those
of you who subscribe to this list who teach in middle and high school? I
know many of you are frustrated because this list has so much discussion
of theory, and you want concrete ideas that work well in the classroom.
Grammar instruction that is based on bad science and bad pedagogy isn't
going to work, and that's what most of the well-known publishers are
offering you. What can we all do to cultivate the kind of fluency I'm
talking about?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-259
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
**
"Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
but that's not why people do it normally" - Frank Oppenheimer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
