# Why is grammar not taught in school now?



## nichol

Grammar is very important in the usage of English.
But why is it not taught in school now?


----------



## illuminaut

It isn't? If you mean it isn't taught well enough I might be inclined to agree.


----------



## timpeac

nichol said:


> Grammar is very important in the usage of English.
> But why is it not taught in school now?


They don't teach you English grammar when you learn English?


----------



## suzi br

It is taught in English primary schools


----------



## Fernita

Grammar is always taught, I hope. The fact is that maybe the methods have changed so much that sometimes students don´t realise they are learning grammar. At least, this is what I´ve seen after analysing different teaching methods.


----------



## JamesM

I believe that Grammar is included in a larger category called "Language Arts", at least in our local public schools in California.   Grammar is a component of the Language Arts curriculum.  It is not taught as a separate class, though, and I don't believe that students are required to diagram sentences anymore, which was a valuable tool when I was taught it, back in the dark ages.


----------



## Sabelotodo

Grammar is taught in the public school where I work. Sometimes it is taught poorly. It is not taught systematically to every student, but it is still taught.  I wish we would teach sentence diagramming again.  It made grammar comprehensible to the kids who prefer math class.


----------



## nichec

Grammar is definitely taught in Taiwan when I was still a student there, in fact, it was a very important part of the English education there.


----------



## .   1

nichol said:


> Grammar is very important in the usage of English.
> But why is it not taught in school now?


This is almost a self-contradictory question.
Grammar is essential for language.
English language people seem to be continuing to learn the language ergo they are picking up grammar at some point and I will nominate school as being the most likely culprit.

.,,


----------



## chesty

Hello. In my opinion, in the UK, (and belatedly in France) there has been a continuous trend away from anything remotely constitutive of rigour across the spectrum of academic subjects.

This trend, as i see it, born in the sixties, would have it that rigour kills creativity. 

Back in the day, my (now) ex-wife railed against me for teaching our daughter the times-tables! (poor little darling)

Grammar, has always been seen as "on the hard side", so it had to go.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

I can recall a news article from Australia back in the eighties I think.  A schools inspector descovered that a private cshool teacher was teaching the pupils grammar.  The school was threatened with the loss of its Government funding unless this state of affairs was changed immediately.  The teacher was amazed at the seriousness of the 'crime' and it seems that at the time, grammar could be mentioned only if it was necessary to explain another tangential issue.


----------



## suzi br

I've had time to think about this more and decided to enter the debate.

I don't think that children need teaching grammar explicity, they learn the MOST of the REAL rules of grammar before they are four  - they can use pronouns systems, tense systems, adjectived and adverbs, syntax and body language to communicate effectively in their communities.   Listen to a four year old and be AMAZED at their grammatical accuracy, and their display of an undelying grasp of grammar that is shown when they get irreguarl forms "wrong" like  "sheeps" and "flied"

 Furthermore, no-one ever taught a four year old the difference between I and him be talking about first person  and second person and subject and object case ...

so in short you dont need to be TAUGHT grammar ... you learn it by immersion, and probably thanks to a part of your brain that is hardwired to "do" grammar at this stage in your life (see different theorists, such as Chomsky and Pinker for more on this)

Then you have to "learn" writing conventions and that, in general, does take more teaching because it is a relativley artificial form, compared to speeech.

And then, you maybe have to "learn" some terms (meta-language) so that you can talk about language and understand it's structures, for ppl like me this is interesting and valid work, but a lot of the rhetoric about the "need to teach grammar"  is tied up with some (mis-placed) idea that learning technical terms has an effect on a child's own language use.  It generally doesn't.

To say nothing of rules like "never start a sentence with and"  etc etc which I am likely to call bogus rules! 

What I have laid out here is a distinction between different *types* of grammar. For most ppl they can get by with just using language, in the way you can use your pc without having to know the meta-language which explains what is going on under the surface, but for some it is a useful tool .  For others knowing the meta-language and bogus rules just gives them a platform to be snipey about others who don't know or use them.


----------



## Porteño

I must admit that I have no recollection of ever having been taught 'grammar' as such in my school years in the UK. English Language was the name of the subject, if my memory doesn't fail me, and in it we were taught the art of précis and paraphrasing. We also analyzed many of the works of Shakespeare and others to identify (what's the word I'm looking for?) metaphors, onomatopaeas, irony, etc. Structural composition was also very important, the idea of expressing oneself clearly and concisely in writing. Mundane items such as phrasal verbs, the likes of which we were blissfully unaware of (as I imagine most native speakers are), modals and other items which are such a problem for foreign language students were never even mentioned.


----------



## nichol

The definition of Grammar includes a set of rules making a prescription for the proper use of the language. Nevertheless, language usage is not a recipe and English usage has changed considerably. These grammar rules tell us nothing about how people actually talk or write. If you spoke or wrote according to the rules as found in grammar books, you would have the trouble being understood.

In some countries with English as the mother language, the Authorities might have the conceptions that grammar was taught because it was a way for teachers of English to acquire professional status when the profession first emerged and there was any reason to believe this was an effective way to teach a language. They might opine that if you were speaking and writing early, you probably knew most of it by the time you were 4. 

It is beyond doubt that grammar is the foundation of the usage of English.
In our country, English is not our mother language, so knowing its grammar is the only way to master our spoken and written English efficiently and accurately in our daily life. Unfortunately, we are not taught grammar in school.


----------



## Porteño

Then that is obviously a serious omission. It is difficult to see how any non-native English speaker could ever hope to learn the language without grammar instruction. Much in the same way as we in England have to learn Latin, French, Spanish or Chinese grammar when we study those languages. It would be impossible without it.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Hi Suzi BR.  I read your defence of the 'No Grammar' case with interest.  My response is to say that while the natural aquisition of grammar by the grammar module in a child's head is adequate for communication at a certain level, a formal course of instruction is required to bring that competence to the level which modern society demands.

Much of our communication nowadays is written.  We do not see the puzzled expression on the face of the reader which would prompt us to restructure our remarks.  I read letters written by native English speakers who have never been taught grammar and weep.  When I point out to them that there is no verb in a sentence, they ask me what a verb is.  I agree that that there is no particular use for rules about split infinitives and prepositions at the ends of sentences, but unless we make some sort of study of how the language works, we are unable to see why it sometimes doesn't.  

If we habitually write in ways which are comprehensible, but grammatically incorrect, we also deny ourselves the opportunity for 'special effects' in language.  The reader will simply write them off as further examples of incompetence.  In short, not knowing these things deprives us of much of our capacity for precision and expression.

I feel better now; I've been wanting to ket that off my chest for a long time.


----------



## .   1

I still do not agree with the premise that grammar is not taught in school.
This sounds like a discussion my grandfather could have had with his mates about the falling standard of English and Education in general.
It reminds me somewhat of the Monty Python masterpiece with the old gents sipping port complaining about how hard life was in the old days 'livin' in an 'ole in t' road'.

The young people I have dealings with are no less articulate than I was at their age.

.,,


----------



## chesty

In the UK, broadly speaking, grammar is not taught. English is taught, grammar is not.


----------



## Brioche

In the olden days, a great deal of the "grammar" which was taught was a prelude to learning Latin.
You need to know the subject, the object and the indirect object so that you can use the correct Latin case.
If you can recognise a "noun clause" in English, you'll know to turn it into an "accusative + infinitive" in Latin, and so on.

Back in those olden days, Latin was a sine qua non for getting a degree.

Latin teaching [and now modern language teaching] has just about disappeared from UK [and Australian] schools, so there is little need for the sort of "grammar" that was taught pre-1970 or so.

In my opinion, real English grammar should be taught in schools, especially considering how many young people there are from non-English speaking backgrounds in UK [and Australian] schools these days.

Schools should teach how kids how English actually works, how to use it to best advantage.


----------



## Insider

It's taught at the school, actually. And, as for me, it was on really normal level. I don't want to say that it was awful, but I couldn't say perfect, as well.

In my opinion, without knowing grammar, or at least studying grammar, it would be a great problem to make some good results in knowing language. Grammar is, like, a skeleton of the language, without its tha language will fall down completely.

Insider


----------



## suzi br

I totally agree with you Giordano, I wasn't making a "no grammar case" see this is the second point in my posting:


> Then you have to "learn" writing conventions and that, in general, does take more teaching because it is a relativley artificial form, compared to speeech.


 
I earn my living teaching English to nativer speakers, in England, and I agree with what you say..... BUT I still think it is important to disentangle the issues about what seem to me to be three distinct "types" of grammar. Especially in light of ..,'s point about the silly Python-esque debates that some people delight in on this topic. (p.s that forero's name is nightmare - I think I mispelt it!!)

I still don't know why people keep saying this stuff* isn't* taught in schools because *IT IS*!!! However, not everyone wants to (or can) learn it, and our expectations of universal literacy are higher now than they've ever been.

I also think that explicit grammar teaching has a vital purpose for learning a second language, especially when you are older, and have to learn using techniques that are different than the ones you use as a kid to learn your native grammar.


----------



## Frank06

Hi Chesty, all,


chesty said:


> In the UK, broadly speaking, grammar is not taught. English is taught, grammar is not.



These explain you has to...;-)

How do you mean? I cannot follow this statement, because it seems to be so contradictory. Otherwise said, I don't understand the claim "grammar is not taught".

Maybe it's not bad if all people who have claimed so far that 'grammar is not taught', would explain what they mean by 'teaching grammar'.
I'll put it in another way: what's your suggestion for 'teaching grammar', and in how far does your suggestion differ from the current classroom practice.
(And can you please back up your with some real data and references which go beyond the purely anecdotal level).

Best regards,

Frank


----------



## cirrus

The statement that grammar generally isn't taught in UK schools doesn't match the facts.  With the literacy strand of the national curriculum being so strongly stressed, these days it is obligatory.  This website gives more details about the current situation and the recent history of grammar teaching in the UK.  In addition when go onto you learn a foreign language, grammar forms a significant part of what you are taught.


----------



## Porteño

Well, cirrus, things have obviously been changing and apparently I have been blissfully ignorant of them. When I mentioned that I had no recollection of grammar being taught when I was at school, I should perhaps qualify that by saying that I was educated at a private primary school and then at one of the better-known public schools. My schooldays ended in 1953! 

No National Curriculum had ever been thought of in those far-off days (at least I don't think it had). I have to say that, given the poor standard of English I am frequently pained to witness in letters from government departments, I am very pleased that something is being done to raise the standards. What interests me particularly is whether the National Curriculum applies to all schools or only to state schools. Furthermore, I have scanned through the various websites arising from your post but (perhaps I haven't gone deeply enough) I don't see clear details as to what has to be taught, especially with regard to tenses. Perhaps you could provide some more leads.

When I began teaching English to foreign students some 25 years ago, I had to make a complete study of English grammar since, while I consider my oral and written skills to be of a high standard, I really had no idea about tenses and when and why they are used. I had never even heard of Phrasal verbs and such things as relative clauses, reported speech, etc. but of course I used all these tools quite naturally and correctly.

Thank you for the enlightenment!


----------



## Porteño

Hi! All grammarians. 

Just to support my contention that grammar is not taught in English schools, I have just received this hilarious example from the _Daily Telegraph, _which I think aptly illustrates my point.

Why arnt childrun being tort how 2 rite?
By Lynne Truss

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/16/ntruss16.xml
Have fun and a good day!


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Porteño said:


> Just to support my contention that grammar is not taught in English schools, I have just received this hilarious example from the _Daily Telegraph, _which I think aptly illustrates my point.
> Why arnt childrun being tort how 2 rite?
> By Lynne Truss



I couldn't open the links you posted. But looking at the title of the article - which seems to be _grammatically _correct, no? -- the article is about *spelling* rather than about grammar. I hope we can agree that spelling is not really the same as grammar...?

Could it please be possible to post a correct link? Thanks .

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## majlo

nichec said:


> Grammar is definitely taught in Taiwan when I was still a student there, in fact, it was a very important part of the English education there.



The same down here in Poland.


----------



## Porteño

The links are not important and, in fact, I didn't intend to include them and I'm going to edit them out.

However, while I agree that the majority of the mistakes are spelling errors, they are still grammar, aren't they? To my mind, correct punctuation and spelling are as much a part of grammar as the conjugation of verbs for example, of which there are some errors too.


----------



## majlo

Porteño said:


> However, while I agree that the majority of the mistakes are spelling errors, they are still grammar, aren't they? To my mind, correct punctuation and spelling are as much a part of grammar as the conjugation of verbs for example, of which there are some errors too.



It goes without saying


----------



## Porteño

But majlo and nichec, I was talking about teaching English grammar at schools in England.


----------



## timpeac

Porteño said:


> The links are not important and, in fact, I didn't intend to include them and I'm going to edit them out.
> 
> However, while I agree that the majority of the mistakes are spelling errors, they are still grammar, aren't they? To my mind, correct punctuation and spelling are as much a part of grammar as the conjugation of verbs for example, of which there are some errors too.


Interesting question. I don't think I'd count spelling as grammar. I view grammar as relating to the structure of the language.

If spelling is grammatical, is Chinese ungrammatical for having no relationship between pronunciation and spelling?


----------



## timpeac

Actually, further to my last point, I don't mean that I think spelling is unimportant though. It is a convention which is accepted, and deviation from that standard can cause confusion.

In this sense spelling is similar to grammar. No one is ungrammatical. If they say "there is 3 of them" or "I've went to the shops" then they have a grammar (I've heard people make such "errors" quite consistently. Interestingly as far as I'm aware all UK sports commentators seem to say "he has" + simple past verb form when they attempt the perfect tense! "he has took") however the grammar they have is not the standard grammar.

We can argue about what does or indeed should make up part of what is perceived as standard grammar, and it is usually variation from that perceived standard (which itself is not universal) that is viewed as "grammatical error".

Perhaps the question comes down to "why are schools not as normative as they once were?"?


----------



## Porteño

I quote the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

1  (the study or use of) the rules about how words change their form and combine with other words to make sentences.

Logically, spelling has to fall within this definition, particularly with regard to English where a spelling difference can change a word from a noun to a verb to an adjective to an adverb and so _ad infintum,_ wouldn't you agree?

Apparently our threads crossed.


----------



## majlo

Well, maybe I transferred it from Polish, but in my mother tongue if you make an error in spelling, it's counted as a grammatical one. I presumed it's the same in English.


----------



## Porteño

timpeac, You mention that Chinese has no relation between spelling and pronunciation. Surely this applies very much to English,too. However, I don't regard pronunciation as grammar, particularly given the freedom of the English language with its plethora of local and regional dialects and pronunciation.


----------



## timpeac

Porteño said:


> I quote the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
> 
> 1  (the study or use of) the rules about how words change their form and combine with other words to make sentences.
> 
> Logically, spelling has to fall within this definition, particularly with regard to English where a spelling difference can change a word from a noun to a verb to an adjective to an adverb and so _ad infintum,_ wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Apparently our threads crossed.



Yes I think I do - if grammar is defined in this sense of "normative rules of a perceived standard" (which I have to admit it often is). In its wider (and, in my opinion, more proper) sense of "the structure of expression" I disagree.

Funnily enough, sitting by me as I write this is "Grammar" by Frank Palmer, and he has a section on what is grammar. He claims that there can be various popular interpretations of "grammar" as referring to normative rules but for him "It describes what people do when they speak their language; it is not something that has to be found in books, written down or learnt by heart. As investigators, of course, we want to write about the grammar of a language; but writing it down does not bring it into existance any more than writing about biology creates living cells!"

And I think I'd go along with that.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Porteño said:


> However, while I agree that the majority of the mistakes are spelling errors, they are still grammar, aren't they? To my mind, correct punctuation and spelling are as much a part of grammar as the conjugation of verbs for example, of which there are some errors too.



So, the difference between e.g. E _colour_ and AE _color_ is a grammatical issue?
This year, Dutch spelling was reformed (some minor adaptations). According to your logic, Dutch grammar has changed accordingly?
I think it goes without saying that it hasn't...

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## timpeac

Porteño said:


> timpeac, You mention that Chinese has no relation between spelling and pronunciation. Surely this applies very much to English,too. However, I don't regard pronunciation as grammar, particularly given the freedom of the English language with its plethora of local and regional dialects and pronunciation.


Well, the grammar of sounds or phonemics is remarkably similar across different accents. In other words person A in town A may pronounce a vowel in a different way from person B in town B but he does it consistently and so the underlying structure can be studied. It is this, in fact, that allows us to understand people with strong accents at all since the brain is very good at quickly equating the realisation one person gives to a sound to the realisation itself would give that sound.

However, I'm rather surprised at you saying you don't regard pronunciation as grammar. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean it's fine to say "there is three of them" but it only becomes "ungrammatical" (against the perceived standard) if written down?


----------



## Flaminius

I have read Porteño's example three times but two sentences are still unclear to me.  Now, what gets in the way of my attempt at understanding/deciphering is stylistics.

E.g., We are going to crack down on security.
Since when has security become a bad thing such as drugs, weapons and loud music?  This is what the grammar module in my brain would say.  Then, other parts of my brain have to work on the sentence to decide that the author might be talking about cracking down on dangers for security.

Stylistics is different from grammar but I think the former is hard to talk about unless the latter is understood.  Could educators in English speaking countries please inform to what degree your education system links stylistics and prescriptive grammar?


----------



## timpeac

Not very much at all. I think that a stylistic effect would simply be called that, or if we thought it was an error it would be considered an error of sense - I don't think anyone would consider a sentence which doesn't make sense for semantic reasons as ungrammatical.

Is "It's so cold in here that my ice-cream is melting!" ungrammatical? My instinct says not.


----------



## Porteño

No, timpeac, definitely not. When I speak of pronunciation I am referring to how a particular word is said/spoken, not its use in the context of a phrase.. Unless it is grossly out of line and the listener would find it unintelligible, a given word can be pronounced in a variety of accepted ways and therefore be considered correct, in English, of course. 

Frank06, your comment is most apt and I will be bold enough to say that I consider it a grammatical issue in the sense that, if we are talking about BE 'color' would be wrong and, similarly the converse is the case if we are discussing AE. English grammar is not universal to the English language in my view, Each established variation of English such as in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The Falklands, etc. etc. may have its own legitimate variants, even as far as strucxture is concerned in many cases.


----------



## timpeac

Porteño said:


> No, timpeac, definitely not. When I speak of pronunciation I am referring to how a particular word is said/spoken, not its use in the context of a phrase.. Unless it is grossly out of line and the listener would find it unintelligible, a given word can be pronounced in a variety of accepted ways and therefore be considered correct, in English, of course.


But how is saying "happy" as "'appy" any different from writing "happy" as "appy"?


----------



## Flaminius

Tim, I think I produced a wrong example for what I called stylistics.  Let's take a look at another one.

Every customer will have a pass.  They are to show it at the reception.  If you forget the pass, you have to tell your name at the reception.

Here is a more-or-less palatable recast.  Each of the sentences are rather grammatical, yet, strung together they are slightly annoying because "every customer" is indexed to two different pronouns; they and you.

This is what I meant by _supra_, "[s]tylistics is different from grammar but I think the former is hard to talk about unless the latter is understood."


----------



## timpeac

Flaminius said:


> Tim, I think I produced a wrong example for what I called stylistics. Let's take a look at another one.
> 
> Every customer will have a pass. They are to show it at the reception. If you forget the pass, you have to tell your name at the reception.
> 
> Here is a more-or-less palatable recast. Each of the sentences are rather grammatical, yet, strung together they are slightly annoying because "every customer" is indexed to two different pronouns; they and you.
> 
> This is what I meant by _supra_, "[s]tylistics is different from grammar but I think the former is hard to talk about unless the latter is understood."


Ok, I see what you mean now. I often notice that in songs eg "I met him on a summer's night and we fell in love, and then you left me!" mixing "him" and "you" or something like that (and it winds me up no end too!). In fact since it's not really so different, I think, from my ice-cream example in that it's a collection of words which are perfectly grammatical if you don't look at their individual meaning but which is not an acceptable utterance because of the sense.

I can see why you might consider them to be ungrammatical. Perhaps they are in the restricted sense for grammar of "normative rules to produce acceptable sentences". However, again in the wider sense I think it makes more sense to study grammar as the structure of the sentences and bear in mind that sometimes the innate sense of the words you use can create a nonsense. In other words a sentence is not always acceptable just because it breaks no normative grammatical rules.


----------



## Porteño

That's an interesting point, timpeac. The jungle gets thicker the deeper you penetrate it. Written as 'appy' would be a definite grammar mistake, saying 'appy' is a borderline case. The dropping of 'h's' is not strictly correct although it falls under my definition as to whether the speaker would be understood and also, being a common feature of Cockney pronunciation (not slang, which is another Pandora's Box), I think I would have to accept it as being grammatically cirrect within my definition.


----------



## paddycarol

Things are not like what nichol says. In most part of China, grammar is not only taught but paid too much attention to! (I don't mean grammar is not important.)


----------



## Porteño

Back again, timpeac _et al. _There appears to have been a computer glitch which did not let my post through, which read as follows:
 
Perhaps I should also have added that I think you have to look at grammar from two distinct perspectives as far as English is concerned - oral and written. .
 
For written English, apart from variations in meaning, and sometimes usage of a given word, the 'rules' as to what is acceptable as good grammar are pretty much universal, at least as far as the principal English-speaking groups are concerned. For better or worse, we are not saddled with any overriding authority that determines what is right and wrong, so it is very much up to the individual and what is generally perceived as being 'correct'. 
 
As regards the oral usage, things become a veritable snake pit. In the 'good old days' of my youth, 'Oxford English' was considered to be the epitome of English pronunciation, The BBC, for example, allowed for no regional speech on radio and television, unlike today when you have to pay far closer attention to what is being said. Many of the independent preparatory and public schools (private elementary and high schools for our American _foreros_) taught their own particular pronunciation (usually a slight variation from ‘standard Oxford’) which enabled former students to recognise fellow 'old boys', even in a crowd.  It was an 'identity thing' to use a modern colloquialism. It also had a lot to do with class distinction, a politically incorrect concept nowadays. These days it seems that everyone has applied the Lowest Common Denominator and adopted the, to my ears, appalling Estuary English. (á la Princess Diana, dec’d). The matter is further muddied by the fact that most teachers speak the local ‘lingo’, which then becomes the golden rule for their students.


----------



## cirrus

For me what you are describing is not grammar but linguistics and sociolinguistics at that.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


timpeac said:


> [Frank Palmer:] "[Grammar] describes what people do when they speak their language; it is not something that has to be found in books, written down or learnt by heart. As investigators, of course, we want to write about the grammar of a language; but writing it down does not bring it into existance any more than writing about biology creates living cells!"
> And I think I'd go along with that.



Amen...
But isn't this the point of view of every single linguist on this planet? 
Reading Palmer's quote, I start to wonder why it is not taught in schools what grammar is about, or _all_ about, if you want. 

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ..escargot..

Someone from the UK just told me that he's never learnt grammar at school when he was a child, that he's never been taught about verbs and tenses, etc. 
Is that possible? It's really hard for me to believe...


----------



## sound shift

..escargot.. said:


> Someone from the UK just told me that he's never learnt grammar at school when he was a child, that he's never been taught about verbs and tenses, etc.
> Is that possible? It's really hard for me to believe...


I can believe it. I remember parts of speech from French lessons at secondary school, but I don't remember them from  English lessons at secondary school, where the emphasis was more on expression. In English lessons at secondary school, I was never given any kind of rule or list to learn by heart and certainly not a list of phrasal verbs. The average person in the UK street (not the kind of person who is interested in language or who comes to WR) has no idea what a phrasal verb is. Nevertheless, they have been using phrasal verbs all their life. Perhaps we were taught the rudiments of English grammar at junior school (I can't remember), but my first exposure to the term "phrasal verb" came long after I had finished school, and I am sure the same goes for my first exposure to many other grammatical terms.


----------



## Nunty

Moderator's note:

This thread was opened four years ago, when the scope of the forum was defined differently. Since such threads are now outside our scope, I am closing this one. I'm sorry to disappoint the participants.

Nunty


----------

