Subject: re : Teaching Grammar

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:56:57 +0100

From: Timothy Mason To: Foreign Language Teaching Forum FLTEACH@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

Pat Barrett gets to the nub of my main argument against the teaching of grammar ; very few people know the rules well enough to teach them (I don't believe that I do) and when we do get to know the rules, we often find them pretty mind-boggling. (Every time a linguist stands up, bright-eyed and bushy tailed, at a conference, one can amuse oneself by noting how long it takes for the other participants' eyes to glaze over).

Much of what passes for grammar in the text-books - and probably even more of what passes for grammar in class-rooms - is false and misleading. This is largely because *teachable* grammar is over-simplified when it is not simply non-operational.

As Pat suggests, grammar may be taught because it is teachable and testable - or appears to be - and permits teachers to do the kinds of things that we believe teachers should be doing. A FL teacher can make-believe that she is in there with the serious people like mathematicians, historians and what-have-you. (Don't we enjoy being able to point to the fact that the children learn more grammar in our classes than they do with their multi-culturalist, leftist unpatriotic English teachers). And the children can make-believe that this is school, and get their pass grades, and leave and forget it all. Which is what happens.

Now, grammar, like pronunciation, is akin to other cultural Thingies. If you've been wearing bliou-jeans and tennis shoes for years, they come to seem natural to you ; any suggestion that you should purchase, say, black trainers instead of the usual white ones, seems as solecistic as a double negative. It is, if you will, a matter of taste.

By this, I do not mean that it is simply a question of individual preference - any more than taste in any other domain. No - on the contrary, gammar, like clothes or table-manners, is always subject to intense scrutiny. And in a similar way, we pay most attention to it when we feel the pressure of that scrutiny weigh upon us - which is why new structures - more correct structures - enter InterLanguage through the formal code rather than through informal chatter. If you want your pupils to get their grammar - and their pronunciation - right, have them speak in public.

Grammar, then, is very similar to pronunciation. Your grammar is who you are, just as much as your accent is. The acquisition of gramar is subject to the same socio-psychological constraints as the acquisition of accent. I don't think that this has much to do with age, except in so far as very young children have not as yet worked out the extent to which social placement depends upon the subtle indicators of status that are to be read in voice, gesture and dress-style. They don't need an artificial stimulant to give them freedom of verbal style. But for the adult, a stiff gin before giving a speech does help you side-step the pressure and play the necessary role, as many a politician can tell you (one of the reasons why politicians are particularly prone to alcoholism). It helps overcome the fear of mimicry.

Because I believe that Ron Sheen is entirely wrong when he claims that there are 'natural' mimics. We are all capable of mimicry, and, according to the sociolinguists, we do it all the time ; in any conversational pairing, there is a tendency for each particpant to adopt the accent of the other. However, this basic tendency is often over-ridden by considerations of power and status ; in England, for a solidly working class male to mimic the accent of his upper-class interlocutor would be a social error of some magnitude, and a surrender of dignity. And so, as in England all accents are social indicators in a firm hierarchical system, considerable anxiety as to accent accompanies public speaking. (Recently, there has been a kerfuffle in the news-papers as to whether Tony Blair is consistent in his accent or whether he changes it to suit circumstances. It is felt that if the latter is true, it indicates a high degree of untrustworthiness. One's position on this matter is an indicator of one's politics).

Grammar is surrounded by similar anxieties. Grammar is, indeed, the fruit of such anxieties. Rules of grammar are rules of comportment and the grammar teacher is a dancing master. Like so many other aspects of language, good grammar is good posture.You cannot teach it without attending to social nicety. Which is to say that any such attempt needs to be fully sociologically informed.

Regards

Timothy Mason

iufm de versailles