This is a fantastic article on how our grammar has changed over time. Read and enjoy!
There was a time, way back in the murky past, when understanding English Grammar was considered to be one of the fundamentals taught at schools in the English speaking world. For some reason, this has changed over the past few decades and a more holistic approach to literacy instruction has been advocated. However, even highly intelligent students now seem to struggle when it comes to the conventions of writing in English. Clearly, there are some things that just don't automatically happen via exposure to language and texts. There are still some basic elements of language learning, including those pesky Grammar rules, which must be actively taught.
In fact, it is somewhat misleading to refer to English Grammar rules as 'rules'. They are not rules in the same way that we have rules of cricket, for instance. If we wanted to know about the rules of cricket, we would simply consult the official Cricket Rule Book. However, we cannot do something similar if we want to know about English Grammar rules. There is no official English Grammar Guide that contains all the laws of the language. These rules are not so much 'rules' as they are 'conventions', agreed upon quite informally over time by the majority of those who use the language.
So if they are not really rules at all, then why do we need to follow them? It is not mandatory to follow conventions. People are allowed to differ from the norm. The supposed English Grammar rules are not laws! I will not go to jail if I tell the police, 'I seen the man what robbed the place!' I will not have to face an officious magistrate if I am overheard telling a friend, 'There ain't nothing I can do about it.' And, assuming I was not supposed to be at work all weekend, I will not be fired if I tell a co-worker, 'Me and Billy was just down at the pub on the weekend, wasn't we Billy?'
The police officer, my friend and my co-worker would all understand me. They would get the message I intended to convey. Does this mean that understanding English Grammar is unnecessary? This would be the case if it were only the meaning of our communications that were important. However, this is clearly not the case. Successful communication between two people involves not only the sender of the message, but also the receiver of the message. And the perception formed by the receiver of the message can be vitally important. This perception will be influenced by the manner in which the message is sent. If the conventions of Grammar are followed, the message may well be received more favourably since both the sender and receiver of the message are using the same system for communicating.
Consider the case when the communication is not made verbally, but in writing. Writing is a far more formal medium. The expectation that goes along with this is that English Grammar rules will be followed more closely in writing than in speaking. There is no doubt that if my written statement, 'I seen the man what robbed the place!' was distributed to a jury, then my credibility would be somewhat reduced.
The way language is used does matter. English Grammar rules may not be rules per se, but we are still bound by them. The effective communication of our intended meaning and the perception of our message by those that receive it depend upon communicators 'playing' by the rules. There are times that our communications need to appear professional and credible. This is why understanding English Grammar should be reinstated as a fundamental focus of our study of language at school.
Brad Nugent is a school psychologist from Western Australia. He enjoys helping others to improve their learning outcomes, particular with regards to written expression.
You can visit Brad for more information at his Understanding English Grammar blog.
You can see more Brad's work at www.freelancewriting.com
No comments:
Post a Comment