re : 8 . 792 , disc : grammar in uk schools - - a response i was fascinated by geoffrey sampson 's defense of traditional educational language standards , and cannot resist commenting on some points . he says : it seems to me that teaching correct usage , the > standard terminology for elements of grammar and punctuation , and the > ability to remedy formal errors in faulty prose are exactly the kinds > of thing that need to be taught in this area at secondary-school > level . to say that school pupils should be taught to engage in > " explicit , systematic reflection on what it is that we are doing when > we use language " strikes me as akin to suggesting that teachers of > french should forget about teaching the past participle of " vivre " in > favour of getting their pupils to develop considered opinions about > the theories of derrida . even assuming this type of cognitive > achievement is worthwhile in principle , it is quite impractical for > the average secondary-school class to attain it . setting aside the possible implication of elitism in the phrase " the * average * secondary-school class " , i view the charge of " impracticality " with suspicion , since it is a typical way of dismissing any innovation . it means " it 's very nice but there 's no time for it . we have already identified the priorities , and we ' re having trouble getting them through in the time we have . " cf . we have no time or money to investigate the " so-called " causes of crime , because there 's so much of it that we can hardly keep up with the demand for more prisons - - that 's the top priority - no time for anything else , thanks anyway . nevertheless , in principle i was not put off , and read on to find out why the top priorities are what they are . i was not disappointed , though the rationale offered seemed predictable to me , and also arguable . > people need to learn to write their national language accurately > because much of modern life depends on complex written communication , > and prose that is full of unsystematic deviations from the conventions > interferes with successful communication , as dirty windows interfere > with successful vision - - the message gets lost amid problems with the > medium . people need a terminology for talking about the bits and > pieces of language , as a car mechanic needs to know the names of the > parts of a motor , in order to provide an apparatus for thinking out > what has gone wrong and how to cure it when prose does n't " work " . this all sounds reasonable . and i am indeed in favor of students knowing these things . in fact , prescriptive grammatical terminology and analysis do set a foundation even for what linguists do when they " engage in explicit , systematic reflection on what it is that we are doing when we use language " namely , linguists start with the traditional categories , explore their motivations and then discuss where they seem to be inadequate and what would be more adequate , in view of whatever larger linguistic facts are brought to bear on whatever problem of traditional grammar . . . i realise , of course , that geoff is not arguing for this - - and so i wonder if traditional grammatical analysis etc . is either necessary or sufficient for effective " complex communication " . probably nobody would defend the " sufficient " condition in view of much obscure , if not incomprehensible , ( though " grammatically " flawless ) standard writing , but i also wonder about the necessary " condition " . that is , do you have to be able to analyse to imitate the standard way of writing ? is the standard that different from a " natural " language ( first learned type ) ? ( at least with some good , also professional , creative writers i know , they are not actually aware of some of the key elements of their style , e . g . , one who is very effective in using and even coining nominal compounds , but did not show recognition of this as a characteristic of his style when i mentioned it to him . ) thus , i am not challenging the notion of a standard or necesarily the demand for its use in certain contexts , but how it is presented , esp . is it this great logical thing it 's generally portrayed as , that 's gonna solve all those " communication " problems that have alarmed english publishers since the time of caxton ? but even more , does it have to be * explicitly * taught ? ( maybe a lot of teachers screw up teaching " grammar " , because that 's where a lot of students complain they get irremediably bored and just want to get the hell out of the classroom . who knows , even linguistics might be more popular , if many students had n't earlier been turned off to " grammar " . ) > beyond that , though , teaching orthography and grammar at school level > has a much broader educational value . one of the lessons we all have > to learn is that nothing big and worthwhile is ever achieved in this > life without careful attention to endless tedious and often arbitrary > details . i can't see a better domain for learning this lesson than > the orthography and grammar of one 's national language : it contains > the tedious details , but it relates to material which surrounds the > child in his everyday life . this is the discipline and " moral fibre " argument , which is the last ditch attempt at enforcing authoritarianism . as a friend of mine , an english teacher observed , his supervisor is an ambitious man , and a stickler for discipline . night school students should not wear hats in class , says the supervisor . so my friend the teacher told one recalcitrant student that once ( these are night school adults ) . the student took it off and put it right back on . my friend said . that 's it . i ' m here to teach english . he 's not bothering anybody else . i ' m not going to get sucked into some authority game . but school for children is full of such petty discipline things that are insisted upon along with learning " subjects " . obediance is more important than understanding . the argument is that the discipline that comes from obedience will lead to understanding in time , if there is any argument at all , cf . learning declensions and conjugations before approaching texts . ( and often the teachers do n't even know why something is insisted on . they just know that they have to be obeyed , or else the authoritarian structure collapses , and their supervisors will come down on them . ) this is what lots of kids resent about school . probably not the same ones who actually like to cause disturbances ( or can't control themselves somehow ) . is anyone unfamiliar from their childhood with what i ' m referring to ? so what basically is this " discipline " argument . it seems to me the argument is : the student who has mastered standard english has demonstrated ability ( not necessarily inclination ) to follow relatively complex orders and routines , and therefore can be considered capable for positions in hierarchies where following fairly complex orders is considered necessary ( or at least desirable ) . little wonder some actually call this behavioral skill " morality " . but can i question geoff 's rationale without questioning his view of " ( british ) civilization " ( that 's a quote from his message ) ? i do n't know . - - benji
