Who Says We Need Grammar

8/3/2019 Who Says We Need Grammar

1/6

Who says we need grammar?

All through schooling, since third grade, we have been taught grammar. Grammar

is defined at dictionary.com as, the study of the way the sentences of a language are

constructed. By the time I was a senior in high school, I had to memorize the seventeen

comma rules, plus a million other punctuation rules- it was no surprise to me that I barely

remembered two rules from all the years of my schooling. By having to memorize over

forty rules in about three weeks, it is still no shock to me that I barely learned them or

how to apply them still to this day. Why in the heck is it so confusing! I

usually understood where to place certain punctuation marks but I could not explain the

exact rule for why I used it. I didnt care that I used and appositive, I just knew that it

sounded right. Most teachers and professors believe that grammar is important and that

the grammar handbook should be known and memorized. In contrast, there is reason to

believe that the use of grammar and importance of the handbook is not as useful as it is

made out to be.

Why do we use grammar? How many of us have been given a handbook of

grammar rules and every sentence we wrote was either right or wrong because of the

lucky chance of following a rule or unfortunate chance of violating a rule? Do these rules

really make our writing better and correct as most teachers and professors claim, or can

we just throw them aside? John Dawkins, a professional writer, describes the use of

Grammar as a rhetorical tool used to place emphasis on certain parts of a sentence. He

uses a principal called raising and lowering in which clauses are more or less separated


2/6

by the use of punctuation. He explains that if an idea should be emphasized, then the

maximum punctuation should be used: a period or a semi-colon. If the emphasis should

be medium, a colon or dash would be used and a comma or nothing would be used

for minimum emphasis (Dawkins 147). The higher or more abrupt punctuation like a

period causes more separation, more pause than a lower mark like a comma. For

example, compare these two sentences: She wanted to go to the store- until she lost

her money. And She wanted to go to the store until she lost her money. Until she lost

her money was emphasized because of the dash. The second sentence, which had

no pronunciation, was given much less emphasis. Dawkins describes using grammar ashow we want readers to read our writing instead of using a bunch of rules so that we are

handbook correct. He says, Learning to punctuate effectively requires only a little

knowledge of grammar, much less than most English teachers will grant (WAW

150). He also states that we need to understand what independent and dependent clauses

are, but we know this based on everyday speaking, reading and writing; I agree. If

my English teachers had me focus on content and challenge me to read and write more

instead of memorizing the entire grammar handbook, my effectiveness of grammar in my

writing would have been much better. If I am writing for someone else to read, dont I

want to put the emphasis on what I want to reader to read rather than write for the

approval a stupid handbook?

Now we see that the grammar handbook isnt the end all be all and grammar can

be acquired and used in other productive ways, what should be taught in schools? It is

also believed that teachers should start teaching grammar at a young age such as fourth

grade. But is this even productive or necessary? Are the kids really even understanding


3/6

what they are being taught? I questioned that teachers shouldnt teach grammar until

later in high school or have other methods than teaching directly out of the handbook.

Three authors of the book To Grammar or Not To Grammar, have an opinion about the

way grammar is taught. The writers of this edition said Both our personal teaching

experiences and the findings of research studies support the conclusion that most students

do not benefit from grammar study in isolation from writing, if indeed our purpose in

teaching grammar is to help students improve their writing (e.g., Hillocks and

Smith, 1991) (Weaver, McNally, and Moerman 18). These teachers have experienced

the ways that kids work and respond to the teaching of grammar and they believe it isclear that kids do not respond to grammar well if it is taken out of context of actual

writing. They believe that the study of grammar can be very helpful though. They stated,

The choice and placement of these grammatical options join with word use and other

features to create a distinctive style and voice in a piece of writing. Thus, guiding

students in sentence expansion and revision is critical to helping them become more

effective, not just more correct, as writers (Weaver, McNally, and Moerman 18). This is

a true point. When we are taught how to connect clauses, we are able to longer choppy

sentences and make them more efficient and flow better. What sixth, seventh or even

high school student is ready to understand the entire handbook like they are taught?

Grammar was a big mess of confusion for me and I tried hard to learn the rules. It was so

hard to remember all the parts of a sentence and all the rules that came with it. I

was learning the basic concepts of writing- I didnt need a group of rules trying to govern

the concept that I was still learning.


4/6

In the English Journal by Jean Sanborn, she also reiterates this point. She states,

What is important in school is not grammatical analysis or the teaching of as yet

undeveloped forms but continuing performance in all aspects of language- reading

writing, speaking, listening-which will encourage, not teach, syntactic maturity.

Language continues to develop through the use of language, not through exercises in the

naming of parts (Sanborn 74). Jean describes young people learning grammar as a

process where they have to step outside of themselves to examine a process. He goes on

to explain that this results in frustration and confusion of the kids which makes them take

a step backward educationally (Sanborn 76). A way I think about this conceptis learning to play basketball or any sport. You have to learn how to dribble, pass and

shoot before you learn plays. It may take years of rec basketball before you can learn

really complicated plays if you are willing to go to that level. If you are taught plays

before you get the fundamentals down, then you will be so frustrated and overwhelmed

that you will probably quit. The same is with writing. If you are trying to write

well rhetorically for the reader, and you know some basic concepts of how to use

grammar, is it really necessary that you are drilled with a million techniques that are not

essential to the reader?

I think that the writers of To Grammar or Not to Grammar explaine it best. For

us, the question is not a simple dichotomy, To grammar or not to grammar? Rather, the

question is, What aspects of grammar can we teach to enhance and improve students

writing, and when and how can we best teach them? In the context of writing is our

short answer, but we keep learning more ways as we keep taking risks as teachers

(Weaver, McNally, and Moerman 19). This makes sense because if we learn plays slowly


5/6

as we learn the mechanics of the game, then we will grow in wisdom towards the game as

our coordination grows. In other words, students will be able to take on outside grammar

as they continue using common sense grammar.

The use of grammar can be effective in punctuation to making sentences efficient

and rhetorical. But, the handbook should not be the bible of all writing. It should

merely be a guideline that writers can refer to. When younger, kids can learn the ideas of

certain punctuation necessary such as a period and a comma to give a little break but they

live in a world where they talk, read and write all the time. Grammar becomes common

sense to them. They know how to connect words to make effective sentences without theconfusion of adding in some grammar rules. At the very end of the writing process when

language, concepts, and rhetoric have been understood, then the rules can be looked at

but some thing should not be considered a grammatical error for not being identical to the

handbook. Students should learn grammar from the handbook as a referral when they are

in late stages of high school. It should not be forced on to Children when they

are young. Grammar is a tool to help our readers understand our writing better. Instead

of confusing our kids, lets let them grasp the concepts of writing in general and teach

simple grammar in late stages of high school in rhetorical purposes.


6/6

Works Cited

Dawkins, John. Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool. College Composition and

Communication 46.4 (1995): 533-48 print.

Sanborn, Jean. "Good Wine before Its Time." National Council of Teachers of English.

75.3 (1986): 72-80. Print. .

Weaver, Constance, Carol McNally, and Sharon Moerman. "To Grammar or Not to

Grammar: That is Not the Question!." Voices from the Middle. 8.3 (2001): 17-33. Print.

.

Documents

Who Says We Need Grammar