Grammar and education Dick Hudson University of Middlesex March 2006

Two views Grammar has nothing to do with education –Chomsky –Most Greek philosophers –Many modern educationalists Grammar is the servant of education –Halliday –the Dept for Education and Skills –Most Greek grammarians

A two-way relation Education needs (researched) grammar –children need grammar to improve: language skills: –writing, reading, speaking, listening thinking –teachers need grammar to improve teaching Grammar research needs education –to understand how it affects language

Grammar for writing Teaching students grammar can improve their writing. But it can also have no effect. Much research showed no effect: –Macauley Hillocks 1986 So grammar teaching was abandoned But...

The early research Tested for an effect which is global – i.e. unfocussed –if they learn about word classes –do they use more subordinate clauses? delayed –if they learn grammar today –will their grammar be richer in six months? unpractised –if they classify words –will they use words better in writing?

The conclusion Who would expect this kind of effect...? Even if the teachers themselves understood grammar? –but why should they understand it without extra study at university? But even this research showed two important things:

Is grammar too hard? No. Elley (1975) taught transformation grammar to mixed-ability teenagers (14- 16) –Who could draw correct trees –But who didn’t enjoy it. Moral: grammar can be taught. (Most other countries don’t doubt this!!!)

Is any grammar useful? Yes: ‘Sentence combining’ –given: two simple sentences –task: combine them into one This had very clear positive effects on writing. (Hillocks 1986) Moral: grammar teaching can be effective if it’s –systematic – decontextualized, proactive –practised in writing

Later research Peter Bryant (2002): –Experiment with 8-10 year olds –Tested use of apostrophes before and after experiment –Experiment: teach about apostrophes –Result: the experimental group got better. Moral: grammar teaching can be effective if it’s focussed.

More morphology Jane Hurry (2005): –experiment with primary children (age 8-10) –the teachers learned about morphology in spelling –they taught children explicitly about morphology –the children became better spellers Moral: grammar teaching can be effective if it’s explicit

Better still,... Grammar is officially back in English and in Foreign Languages and FL grammar is officially based on English It’s required by the National Curriculum E.g....

Writing at KS2 “Language structure. Pupils should be taught: word classes and the grammatical functions of words, including nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, … the features of different types of sentence, including statements, questions and commands, and how to use them (example, imperatives in commands) the grammar of complex sentences, including clauses, phrases and connectives”

Spelling at KS3 and 4 “Pupils should be taught to: increase their knowledge of regular patterns of spelling, word families, roots of words and derivations, including stem, prefix, suffix, inflection apply their knowledge of word formation”

E.g. Year 3, Term 1:

Verbs for 8-year olds “Pupils should be taught the function of verbs in sentences through: noticing that sentences cannot make sense without them; collecting and classifying examples of verbs from reading and own knowledge, e.g. run, chase, sprint; eat, consume, gobble; said, whispered, shrieked; experimenting with changing simple verbs in sentences and discussing their impact on meaning;...”

Method Noticing patterns –to help them learn from reading Collecting and classifying examples –to help them generalize and understand Experimenting with new combinations –to help them apply findings in writing NB grammar could be fun!

Grammar for thinking Traditionally, Latin and Greek were said to be good for ‘mind training’ –Maybe because of the grammar? In Europe, schools compete in the Linguistics Olympiads –4 th International Olympiad in Estonia Grammar puzzles are like logic puzzles –e.g....

Lithuanian diminutives arklysarklelishorse degtukasdegtukélismatch juosta?ribbon merga?girl obuolysobuolélisapple + 11 more Task 1. Fill the gaps. Task 2. What can you say about the pronunciation of uo in Lithuanian? Explain.

Moreover Language is our main tool for complex thought. Grammar expresses the logic of thought. Sometimes grammar misleads, e.g. negative grammar, positive meaning: –I hardly touched it. –I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t rain. –No head-wound is too trivial to be ignored.

Grammar as tool You do any job better if you understand the tool. The tool for thinking is grammar. Therefore ?????

Grammar for teaching Teachers need to understand grammar in order to: –teach it to pupils –apply it to pupils’ work –integrate it into their planning and teaching –think more clearly. But: most teachers didn’t learn any grammar in school.....

Jobs for grammarians There is a serious shortage of teachers who understand grammar –and more generally, language Language-based graduates are welcome in primary PGCE courses They are also welcome in most secondary English courses –if they know a bit about literature...

Education for grammar research What is the effect of education on grammar? Can we use educated people (e.g. students and colleagues) as ‘typical’ speakers? E.g. Gleitman and Gleitman 1979: What does eat house bird mean? –PhD: 'a house-bird who is very eat' respect syntax –clerical: 'everybody is eating up their pet birds‘ ignore syntax

Thank you Some papers about these ideas: Some links to government policy and action: A web-site about grammar in English teaching: