This might be a dead horse I'm beating here, but I'd like to add something to the classes discussion of the teaching of grammar that occurred this morning.
In having had all the wonderful grammar lessons I ever care to have in my life, I look back now and think about the time wasted. I had to memorize the prepositions, had to diagram sentences, had to know how to write those five paragraph essays and all... but am I a better writer for it? No way.
Whatever writing skill I have I attribute to a life time of reading. I've always been a reader, everything from mysteries to histories, to bios and how-to manuals. Now those of you who really know grammar are probably noticing I have a tendency to write sentence fragments, I start sentences with conjunctions and use dangling participles, or is it dangling prepositions... shoot I don't know. So to this I say, so?
I think of some of my favorite writers like Salinger, who used fragments, or Hunter S. Thompson who wrote run-on sentence after run-on sentence. I think about Bierce who used nonstandard spellings, the same could be said for Defoe and Twain who used all manner of slang and regional speak and Jesse Stuart who did so maybe even more than Twain. Did this take away from their writing? Certainly not. If anything, I think the lack of "proper" grammar added to their writing, lent a voice and added to the experience of being in the story. It added authenticity and made for a compelling read (in my opinion of course).
So should grammar not be taught? Of course not, it's important in its place, but just like using a turn signal is important to driving a car, it's not going to win you the Indy 500.
You remind me of the movie "Finding Forester". It was an eye opener to me about writing. I knew that books and such could start a sentence with "and", but I figured that was because they were authors therefore they could do whatever they wanted. Were their stories interesting? You bet. Did I know what they were saying? Sure. Does grammar still need to be taught. Yep, but not to the point that some take it. You made good points, Scott.
ReplyDeleteI love your analogy of the Indy 500. No matter how long we have been teaching or what subject we teach, grammar is one of those necessary "evils" that we have to live with. Grammar is needed to be able to present our writing and creativity so that others can understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe authors that you mentioned that use unorthodox ways of writing are like Dr. Seuss who creates his own words. We all have to have our unique ways of presentation.
We have to find the right balance of how much and what to teach at what time. Oh, well!!!
YOU GO SCOTT! There is a time and a place for everything. I can barely remember some of my English lessons. I believe I sorted through that information, came to the conclusion that I did not need to know it in that context, and moved on. I gained my competency with grammar through reading. It became a path of connections in my brain that was there for me to tread upon as needed. The path was formed by engagement in reading.
ReplyDeleteExactly, Scott, it's all about context. If there's a reason to know something, it will come up in the course of teaching everything else.
ReplyDeleteYes, reading is more conducive to better/good writing, and I see it in students who start reading for the first time when they are freshmen or sophomores. They are more interested in writing, expressing themselves, and sharing their work.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great way to put it
ReplyDeleteScott. I loved the turn signal analogy.
This dead horse deserves a good beating. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete