Grammar teachers
all over the United States are struggling with important questions such as “how
should I teach grammar and why” and “what helps students the most?” When asking these questions teachers usually
have two methods in mind: traditional grammar, which has been around for
centuries, and contextual (transformational) grammar, which has just recently
approached with startling results. Does
contextual grammar have what it takes to outperform its multi-century-year-old predecessor? To better help understand the differences
between these two grammar methods one needs to know a brief history of each,
teaching methods used, the pros and cons of each method, and research that has
been performed and studied comparing said teaching methods. Then, and only then, can one judge whether or
not traditional grammar should give way to a new age and ultimately answer that
troubling question: “how should I teach grammar in writing?”
Traditional Grammar
Though ancient
philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates and Plato have made contributions to
this method previously, traditional grammar has been around at least since
second century B.C; enough is known about history to determine that, at around
this time, schoolboys in Greece were taught grammar using these methods. By the Middle Ages traditional grammar had
reached its peak and was thought of, as Weaver states in Teaching Grammar in Context, “training of the mind” (3). Some grammarians around the eighteenth
century began to force English (a Germanic language) into categories designed
for Latin (a Romance language), which makes grammar imprecise, and this,
according to Noguchi in Grammar and the
Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities, is “what makes traditional
grammar for students so difficult” (5). Since
then, the traditional method has been the standard for teaching students of
grammar and has been this way until being questioned in the twentieth
century. Although some students of
traditional grammar find their studies difficult, Noguchi suggests that “[the
reason] teachers continue to teach formal grammar despite the research findings
probably lies in several factors” (119), most notably: teachers are unaware of
current research, teachers are aware of current research but don’t really
believe it, teachers are aware of current research and believe it but have
nothing better to offer in the place of formal grammar instruction (119).
Lee explains in
his article, “The Promise of Transformational Grammar,” that the purpose of
traditional grammar is to “explain the construction of sentences on the basis
of the meaning of their constituent parts” (2), simply put, it is meant to teach
students the various parts of a sentence and their function. Those who have taken instruction in grammar
may be familiar with exercises in:
1. Identifying various types of phrases
and clauses
2. Understanding various sentence types
3. Understanding various word functions
within a sentence
4. Diagramming (parsing) sentences
5. Ensuring subject – verb agreement
6. Correctly referencing pronouns
One may find that traditional
grammar follows strict rules and guidelines that, at times, seem more
complicated than they should. Due to
these strict guidelines traditional grammar is more often compared to
arithmetic than composition. Noguchi goes
as far to say that “it would be no exaggeration to claim that students trying
to learn even a small portion of grammar resemble cryptographers trying to
decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics” (42).
If one has not studied grammar traditionally, Noguchi’s description
should give an idea of how complex this method can be.
Though research
(to be discussed in greater detail later) has shown that traditional grammar
seems to have no positive effect on composition, Noguchi proposes that “formal
instruction of grammar has potentially the most to offer in the area of style”
(12). The following are points Noguchi
uses to argue that traditional grammar effects writing in the sense of style:
1. Style, like grammar, typically has to
do with form or,
at least, can be viewed with respect
to form; style is a
characteristic choice of form.
2. Style can be studied with respect to
sentences; that is,
we can speak of a style of sentences.
3. The style of sentences can and does
contribute significantly
to the overall style of an essay;
that is, there is considerable
overlap between cumulative effects of
sentence style and the
overall style of an essay.
4. Style is an area on which many of the
technical concepts
introduced in formal grammar
instruction become descriptively
relevant.
(11)
So what does all of this mean? Some grammarians believe that style is a key
element in composition. Noguchi’s
proposal suggests that traditional grammar aids the writer in forming better
sentences, and however the writer decides to form these sentences is what
develops that writer’s specific style which, in turn, these sentences
accumulate to create an essay with overall better form and style.
Unfortunately
for traditional grammar, Noguchi’s proposal regarding the benefits to style
does not seem to do enough to keep the formal methods from further
criticism. Lester states in his article,
“The Value of Transformational Grammar in Teaching Composition,” that “there
simply appears to be no correlation between a writer’s conscious study of grammar
and his ability to write,” and if there was “then all linguists would be great
writers” (1). Even Noguchi, though he
supports formal grammar’s influence on style, agrees that “formal grammar
instruction, at least as it is currently practiced, cannot bring any
significant benefit [to organization and content]” (12), which brings up the
question, “what good is form and style if there is total chaos within the
writing?” The answer is quite simple;
style does not matter if one cannot understand what is being discussed. Noguchi gives three reasons why he believes
traditional grammar is ineffective in improving writing:
1. Formal grammar, being uninteresting
or too
difficult, is not adequately learned
by students.
2. Formal grammar, even if adequately
learned, is
is not transferred to writing
situations.
3. Formal grammar, even if adequately
learned, is
not transferable to writing situations.
(emphases, 4)
Since formal grammar is “tedious and
boring” (5) to most students, it is no wonder why it is not adequately
learned. If a student was to learn
traditional grammar he or she may not even know / understand how to apply it to
a writing situation, rendering the information virtually useless. Noguchi’s third point argues that traditional
grammar may not even be applicable to certain writing situations, again
rendering the information futile.
Contextual Grammar
Compared
to traditional grammar contextual methods are still in infancy. Structural linguists began to surface in the
50’s and early 60’s giving birth to this new method of grammar and conducting
several studies (Harris [1962], Bateman-Zidonis [1966], Mellon [1969]) during
the last fifty years. Weaver explains
that “structural linguists based their grammatical descriptions on careful
analysis of English as it was actually spoken in their time, not on
hand-me-down rules from Latin and from English grammars of earlier centuries”
(11). The 60’s and 70’s gave way to the
idea of transformational grammar – a method with such stunning results that it
threatens the integrity of its ancient predecessor. Neuleib states in her article, “The Relation
of Formal Grammar to Composition,” that Harris’s study “is the one most
frequently named by all researchers today as the study that really began to do
a serious investigation of the worth of instruction in formal grammar” (1). Research and studies continue even to this
day, trying to uncover new ways of teaching better grammar.
Hunter
explains in his article, “A New Grammar That Has Clearly Improved Writing,”
that in contextual grammar students are “taught to identify problem areas
within their own writing [and they] learn mnemonic devices to identify
different parts of speech and […] taught the interrelationships of all parts of
a well-constructed sentence” (4). From
this description alone one will notice the biggest change among the two grammar
methods – contextual grammar, unlike traditional, focuses on the student’s
writing and not overbearing guidelines and definitions. Hunter goes on to say that the most important
difference from traditional grammar is at the “structural level” (5). The following is a list of activities /
exercises students will encounter in contextual grammar:
1. Creating stronger sentences by using
active voice
instead of passive
2. Sentence combining
3. Sentence chunking
4. Sentence unscrambling
5. Sentence expanding
6. Development of paragraphs
7. Development of thesis
8. Organization
9. Style
10. Editing workshops
11. Writing essays and correcting errors
through
multiple drafts
When
compared to the exercises of traditional grammar the most noticeable difference
is the focus of activities –
contextual grammar has made a transition from focusing on the structure of
individual sentences to incorporating all of the exercises into the development
of writing as a whole (i.e. an entire essay).
Lees explains that the “major central tasks of [structural] linguistics
[is] the specification of the internal
organization of sentence-enumerating grammars” (emphases, 4). Therefore, in contextual grammar,
organization is the key, not hard-to-remember definitions or sentence diagrams. Many classes here at Indiana State University
require at least one written essay per semester; these essays are graded on
structure and development of his or her thesis.
Marks on graded papers are intended to be reviewed by the student and
that student is expected to fix these errors on the next essay – this is
contextual grammar in practice.
With
all the buzz about contextual grammar there has to be some good things that
become of it. Lester states that “in the
area of stylistic analysis, transformational grammar promises exciting things”
(1). Hunter explains that “[contextual
grammar] gives students command of structure due to its manipulative, chunking,
and carefully sequenced strategies that cause students to experience, and therefore internalize, the system of the structure
of the sentence as a backdrop to assist their composing” (emphases, 5). This goes to say that students who benefit
more from doing rather than seeing will benefit greatly from contextual
methods. Besides, learning contextually
comes naturally to most – most everyone tends to learn naturally from practice
and from mistakes. As children nearly
everyone learns to speak because they hear others speak and they try to
imitate, not because their parents sat them down and taught them how to form
sentences using diagrams and complex definitions – most parents would get
nowhere with such a method, especially with younger children. So the question arises, “if children can lean
to speak through context why can’t adults learn to write through context?”
In
the article “Why Transformational Grammar Fails in the Classroom” Luthy
expresses that “[contextual grammar] has not been an effective means for
teaching skillful use of the language” (1).
By “skillful” Luthy refers to “a description of language that would have
[teachers] teach the structure of English sentences” (1). Luthy also states in his article that teaching
transformational grammar has disappointing results in adequate description of
English sentences. He also explains that
transformational grammar tries (but fails) to explain the functions of relative
pronouns, modifiers, adverbs as modifiers, etc – basically the various parts of
a sentence and how they function.
Interestingly enough, it seems Luthy fails to realize that these methods
transformational grammar “fails” in are closely related in context to traditional
grammar – meaning traditional grammar also attempts to explain how these
various parts function in a sentence, and, as studies have shown, also fail to
help most students improve their writing.
Coincidence? Weaver, however,
makes a valid point: “writing alone will not necessarily teach students new
grammatical constructions, unless teachers help them learn to combine sentences
and manipulate syntax” (179). Though
writing is critical in contextual grammar, one may see it a sufficient when it
is really not. This misconception must
be taken into consideration if contextual grammar is to be taught
successfully.
Research and Results
Although numerous
studies have been conducted on students of various age and skill levels, there
are a few key studies that began the grammar revolution. The following are brief summaries of studies
performed and the results they had to offer.
Keep in mind, these early studies are what caused grammarians and other English
experts to question the traditional method, a method that has not been disputed
for centuries upon centuries.
R.J. Harris was
one of the first to seriously study transformational grammar in 1962 at the
University of London. His study involved
ten classes, five were taught using traditional methods and the other five were
taught using contextual methods.
Harris’s study was the first to discover that students studying
traditional grammar performed poorly compared to those students who study
grammar in context. These results were
among the first to open many eyes and minds to the possibility of a better
grammar teaching method.
The
Bateman-Zidonis of 1966 was performed by researchers in New Zealand for a
period of three years. During these
three years students of lower grade levels were separated into two different
types of studies: one without grammar and one with traditional methods. The results showed that students with no
grammar study were more successful, Neulib states, “at identifying
inappropriate sentence structures and correcting them” (3). By now experts noticed that there may be a
dysfunction within traditional grammar and began seriously questioning its
abilities in the classroom.
In
1969 the Mellon study confirmed that students who study transformational
grammar learned and retained the material significantly better than the
students in traditional studies. These
results questioned specific elements of traditional grammar and gave way to the
question of what doesn’t work in traditional studies and why. This study was one of the first to determine
that traditional grammar methods may be too difficult and/or confusing for
students to learn, retain, and apply sufficiently. Weaver paraphrases some research that she
found in the 1960’s edition of the Encyclopedia
of Educational Research: “One
investigation found a higher correlation between achievement in grammar in
mathematics than between achievement in grammar and composition” and that
exercises such as “diagramming sentences teaches students nothing beyond the
ability to diagram” (10).
Conclusion
Although
results vary among diverse subjects, one will notice that overall outcomes do indicate that contextual based
grammar has the ability to improve writing skills in various aspects such as
organization, structure, punctuation, etc.
Hunter argues in his article, “A New Grammar That Has Clearly Improved
Writing,” that students who study grammar contextually “improve appreciably not
only in their ability to revise and edit but also in their ability to write
spontaneously and competently” (3); however, there are still those, such as
Melvin, who believe that “our college freshmen surely are dummies” simply
because “even the brightest can seldom explain the difference between
transitive and intransitive verbs” (4).
With the research performed and the results almost always indicating
that contextual grammar does help students write better one can now question
whether or not being able to label a verb and distinguish its function is
really vital to a students education. As
far as they can use the verb correctly is it really necessary to be able to
label it? If so, you may as well tell
Paul McCartney (the Beatles), Prince, Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder (just to
name a few) that they are dummies for not being able to read sheet music. Does this ability really handicap their
ability to play music? No. Few musicians now days are classically trained yet
they are able to create music that sells millions of records – it would be
foolish to consider them dummies. If
contextual grammar is able to create better writers then why not use its
abilities? It is obvious that the dummies are not those who fail to learn how
to diagram sentences, but very well may be those who teach it to better writing.
Annotated Bibliography on the Importance of Contextual Grammar
Hewings, Ann, and Martin
Hewings. Grammar and Context: An
Advanced Resource Book.
London & New
York: Routledge, 2005.
Discusses how and why grammar is
used in a variety of different contexts, mainly in communication. Not intended to teach how to analyze grammar
in great detail, but focuses on new research on how grammar is used in these
contexts (communication).
Hudson, Richard. Teaching Grammar: A Guide for the National
Curriculum. Oxford UK &
Cambridge
USA: Blackwell, 1992.
Hudson gives important background
information on academic grammar. Hudson
focuses mainly on the teaching of standard grammar and offers a variety of
different lessons to follow. Most of
these lessons are intended to help teachers fix problems students have in
writing and speaking. From skimming,
these methods seem to be a blend of traditional and contextual grammar melded
into one.
Hunter, Anthony D. “A New Grammar That Has Clearly Improved
Writing.” The English
Journal
85.7 (1996): 102 – 107. JSTOR. Cunningham Memorial Library,
Indiana State U. 21 October 2007. < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00138274 %281996 11%2985%
3A7%3C102%3AANGTHC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5>.
Hunter reviews
the studies of Barbara Stubbs (teacher at Clearview Regional Junior High School
in New Jersey). Stubbs research has
shown that her methods improve student’s abilities to revise and edit writing,
yet her methods are different from traditional grammar.
No comments:
Post a Comment