Analysis of English Grammar Synthesis - Case Study Example

? Grammar Synthesis Paper Dorothy Korn English 281 April 28, Grammar Synthesis Paper English grammar seems like a simple concept to grasp, at least in theory. However, there are actually two very distinct kinds of grammar, one of which describes language as it is used, and the other of which simply explains how language should be used. Descriptive grammar, the first of these types, is often looked down upon by people who believe that only through prescriptive grammar, or grammar based on textbooks and decided-upon rules, can students be taught to use the English language properly. However, these two types of grammar, although they are usually set up opposite to one another, can both be used together to help teach students to think critically, speak or write well, and communicate clearly. Throughout grade school, the concept of proper English is drilled into the heads of every student, but after reading the first chapter of Understanding English Grammar by Marsha Kolln and Robert Funk, the concept now makes sense. Grammar is a fundamental part of the English language, which reaches far beyond placing a comma in its correct place. This essential portion of our language helps in understanding the reasons why sentences are formed in the way that they are. This technical aspect of English helps to create a systematic set of ground rules for each and every student to follow, no matter what region, in order to be successful in the world of formal English. Grammar is taught from early childhood across the nation. However, there are different meanings to this basis of the English language. The first is that everyone has a different set of grammar rules depending on where they come from. The second definition stems from the linguistic science branch which studies the formalities associated with grammar. The formalities of sentences, otherwise known as their syntax, are discussed in this meaning. The final definition of grammar refers to the actual usage of the term and what is deemed to be proper and improper grammar. These three definitions help highlight the varieties and difficulties that many have with standard grammar. The format for the presentation of grammar in school dates back to the Middle Ages and the eight parts of Latin speech. Originally, Latin was thought to be the superior language, therefore, when scholars created the rules of English grammar, they based it upon this superior language. John Locke, an English philosopher, stated that it was important “to teach Men not to speak, but to speak correctly” (Kolln & Funk, 2012, p. 5) and to utilize the grammar rules that had been set forth by prior intellectuals. This view of the language, called prescriptive grammar, is traditionally taught in schools in order to establish knowledge of the grammar skeleton. In more recent times descriptive grammar has become more popular amongst linguists, which is the acceptance of regionalisms as a type of standard in addition to formal written English. With the different definitions come the arguments and differences in what is considered correct grammar or if correct grammar even exists. Regionalisms have become a sort of accepted way of grammar due to the three broad definitions of this language function. Modern linguists discovered that the issue of disregarding descriptive grammar was that entire languages could be lost. Relying solely on the technical aspects of the language made it even more difficult to comprehend the different parts of speech of these languages, and so the structure of English grammar had to be revised completely. From the revisions came the idea split between structuralists and transformationalists. Instructional grammar, the English language couldn’t be contained in the eight parts of speech in Latin. Also structuralists focused on the systematics of English. Transformational grammar on the other hand focused on pure grammaticism of the language. This required transformationalists to decode the, “built in language system” (Kolln & Funk, 2012, p. 7) of humans. According to structuralists the idea of having a correct form of grammar is incorrect as all versions were to be considered equal. The way that we have come to think of what’s proper and what’s not is not based on actuality but is instead based on the person who has said it. In addition to determining what is correct the occasion of which a conversation is occurring also affects the grammatical correctness. The difference between interview conversations, also known as Edited American English, versus one at a family gathering is great. Edited American English is described as the standard in which we speak and write in formal settings. Structuralists state that the occasion defines whether the grammar used is accurate. Over the course of time our language has transformed remarkably. From the 1802 to the 21st century the way in which we speak has developed, like the authors mentioned, “change is inevitable in a living organism like language” (Kolln & Funk, 2012, p. 11). Moreover, in a classroom these changes in speech have begun to affect the abilities in students to understand traditional grammar the purpose of teaching grammar to the classroom is to have the pupils understand formal written discourse versus what is spoken in a more casual manner. This is known as “code-switching” and it prepares students to have the competency to operate in a formal workplace. Overall grammar is the key to understanding our language as a whole. Not just in English, but spread out in all spoken and written languages. In formal English the rules that are set forth enable fluid and sound speech and writing. The rules of grammar are what hold the language together. Without which, it would crumble. On the other hand, there is the idea that while grammar is important like this to our language, it can also be defined not through what textbooks tell us is correct and right, but more through how people actually use the language in every day speech. In this descriptive view, mentioned briefly above, the focus of the teacher is less on correcting perceived errors and more on figuring out how to move the students' usage closer to an assumed standard form. In other words, descriptive grammar can end up being similar to what Kolln and Funk describe as code-switching. Edwin Battistella explores this in detail in his book called Bad Language: Are Some Words Better than Others? Battistella makes a very interesting and quite convincing point, especially through the way he uses examples from old English grammar tests to show how much the language has changed since the early twentieth century, and how it is still changing today. For this reason, he says, when he corrects student work for grammar he uses common sense to make sure the work enables people to communicate clearly and without confusion, but does not worry about every supposed error (2005, p. 4). Battistella's book explores non-standard language in great detail, and tries to figure out exactly what it is about so-called “bad” language (that is, non-standard language) that bothers people so much. His book is very useful because it provides a much fuller and more useful definition of descriptive grammar than Kolln and Funk. He says that descriptive grammar is best defined as “the study of language that focuses on patterns of use and rules” (Battistella, 2005, p.5). This puts it in direct contrast to the kind of grammar students are taught in school, as instead of constant drilling to memorize what somebody has decided is correct, the focus is more on patterns that exist in actual usage by real people. There are several reasons why descriptive grammar seems a more useful, common sense approach to understanding the English language. The first of these is that language exists mostly to communicate. In speaking English, it does not matter whether or not we are speaking with perfect beauty or not. What matters is that we are able to express ideas clearly so that other people may understand them and act on them. This is in direct contrast, of course, to the ideas of prescriptive grammar, which hold that what matters is that people follow the rules of English set forth in textbooks, in schools, and by people who have studied these textbooks (Battistella, 2005, p. 42). One big reason that descriptive grammar can give us a clearer idea of how to communicate with others clearly is that there are big problems with prescriptive grammar as it is traditionally understood. Some of these problems have to do with where the idea for prescriptive grammar comes from. Many of the very early textbooks on English grammar followed the ideas put forward in Greek and Latin textbooks, and in fact some of them were even there to make sure people knew how to study Latin or Greek later (Battistella, 2005, p.46). Because of this, some of the words prescriptive grammar uses to describe English do not really match up with our language as well as they do with the other, more Classical languages they come from. This can make our grammar textbooks confusing. In addition, even some of the people who argue for the use of prescriptive grammar cannot agree on what rules are right, and some rules are outright ignored. For example, “the prescription against sentence fragments … is widely ignored in speech” (Battistella, 2005, p.43). When you make a singular word ending with s into the possessive, the rules disagree on whether the new word should have an apostrophe s or just an apostrophe (Battistella, 2005, p.44). Clearly, then, prescriptive grammar is not the universal solution that some people would like to argue that it is. Although it definitely does help to make sure that the language used by people is fairly standard, that is all that it can do. Although descriptive and prescriptive grammar seem like they would be opposite of each other, the truth is that both of them can be very useful in a classroom setting, as well as in the world in general. As Kolln and Funk make clear, a knowledge of English grammar really is essential to our ability to use the language. We cannot rely simply on descriptive grammar. On the other hand, though, many of the so-called rules of English are arbitrary. By admitting this, and looking not only at textbooks, but at how the language is actually used, students will be able to express themselves not only grammatically, but also clearly and effectively. By moving from a focus on “correct” grammar to “standard” grammar, as described in Battistela's book, teachers can help their students more than by focusing pedantically on every single grammar error. Work Cited Kolln, Martha and Robert Funk. Understanding English Grammar. Ninth ed. Boston: Pearson, 2009. 3 – 15. Print. Battistella, Ediwn. Bad Language: Are Some Words Better than Others? Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Read More