The two types of grammar
I thought the discussion of prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar was interesting. I knew the view of grammar had slowly been changing, but I'd never had it laid out for me in a text before - especially not one on the subject. It's nice to know that grammar textbook authors exist who are okay with the idea of deviating from the rigid standards set up years ago. And I definitely agree with Marilyn about how language shouldn't confine us. How else could we express ourselves if words couldn't be used to their fullest potential?
And my question: considering the changing perspective on grammar (especially compared to the 1600s), how do you think "school" grammar might evolve from where it stands today?
posted by Anonymous @ 8:09 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I think grammar, if it is being taught again in schools (maybe?) then I expect it to spiral downward into chaos. Pretty soon elementary school students will be allowed to write in Captain Underpants style and it will be "OK" because "they're just expressing themselves" and "it can't be judged." Captain Underpants grammar is where the line should be drawn (actually it should probably be drawn way before that). That's my highly pessimistic point of view. I have a hard time thinking any sort of standard will be established or if grammar is even taught, that it will not be structured enough ("anything goes" sort of attitude might prevail).
I don't think "school" grammar has changed very much. But what appalls me is the spread of text message language. I'm sure most of us have seen the commercials with the parent and child talking with these shortened phrases and it drives me nuts. I've heard about some schools allowing kids to use this "language" on assignments because that's their generation's "language" and the way they know how to communicate.I really hope school grammar does not fall to that and that children continued to be expected to write correctly.
I didn't really have "school grammar." I had to read books, on my own in college, to learn something about grammar. A good change would be to have quality grammar instruction.
I think it's amazing that we're still taught how to write anyway, instead of merely learning trade skills to be used in our ensuing careers.
It's a surprisingly enlightened view given the focus we have on our careers today, and the escalating price of higher education.
I consider it a personal liberty today to learn things that I may never use again, though it does bother my practical side.
The evolution of school grammar could go anyway which the wind blows it. Assuming of course that it becomes a require field of study. It seems that in our present day school system anything that is not on the "president's list" of necessary subjects is considered optional. So I my belief is that grammar will continue to be pushed to the side in order to make more room for things like math and science. How else can we measure our own students against those of prevailing other nations?
As long as there is some form of grammar instruction, I think that is a step in the right direction. Personally, I had very little grammar instruction - we basically learned what verbs and nouns were and that was it! All of my grammar instruction came from comments on essays, which I think was effective, but the entire vocabulary of grammar escapes me. In class when terms like "subject complement" or "direct object" are thrown around I have to stop and think what they mean. I think this could have been avoided if I had been instructed in grammar as a child. I think explicit grammar instruction would also help American children studying foreign languages. I remember Spanish classes in high school when the teacher used terms such as "past participle" or "past perfect" and I had no idea what she meant; it might have helped me if I had already known what she meant - that way I could equate the Spanish concepts to English and perhaps learn quicker.
Post a Comment
<< Home