Page 31 - ELG2304 Apr Issue 484

FEATURES

Jespersen was not the first to claim that
English had only two tenses. Way back in 1726,
Priestley, in The Rudiments of English Grammar,
had come to this conclusion, though later COPYRIGHT PEXELS.COM
contradicted himself by referring (p23) to other
tenses which he called compound tenses….
and in so doing underlined the predicament
that faces grammarians when trying to separate
time and tense. In the history of books on the
subject, the lack of agreement over the number
of tenses in English is astonishing.
In 1973 Quirk and Greenbaum published
their seminal University Grammar of English,
from which all subsequent major grammars take
their cue. From Quirk onwards, Linguistics
was definitely the dominant partner in the
marriage; and although the great handbooks
of the English language published since the
1970’s have used the family name Grammar
in their titles, their authors have mostly
been professors or researchers in linguistics,
approaching grammar in the Saussurian
tradition. One may speculate as to what
impact Quirk’s magnum opus would have had,
and the sales it would have generated, had
its title been A University handbook of English
Linguistics.
As Hudson observed in the English Patient,
“the overwhelming majority of linguists simply
do not see any link between their research
and school-level education.” This begs the
question “Why not?” The simple answer is
that the terms Linguistics and Grammar have
been wilfully confused for over half a century.
It is time to end this confusion, and reserve
one to refer to a field of academic research,
and the other to the art of describing how Wyse, professor of education at UCL, In EFL / ESL, where teachers and coursebook
language is used. concluded that “a review of the requirements writers have not been subjected to the
While lamentations about the poor grammar for grammar in England’s national curriculum constraints of a specific national curriculum,
skills of students are not limited to English- is needed”. Wyse cited the results of an approaches to have remained more varied and
speaking countries, the lack of grammatical experiment involving primary school pupils more rooted in tradition.
awareness seems particularly acute in the some of whom were taught with a new Evidently no divorce between will be total.
English-speaking world. I remember running approach “us(ing) modern linguistics to teach Linguistics has thrown great light onto the way
a translation course with third-year language grammar”. But, he continued, “the test results of language functions, and much of this can help
undergraduates from top UK universities, the experimental trial did not find an improvement better explain how languages are used; but the
when a young man told me how eye-opening in the pupils’ narrative writing as a result of the baseline of modern linguistics, the Saussurian
it was to “do some grammar”. It transpired grammar intervention.” two-tier division, has not helped to make
that none of the students had ever had any Could this lack of improvement be due, at Grammar more understandable for students,
instruction in the subject least in part, to reluctance to throw off a the nor even for teachers who have not studied
In the English-speaking countries, among straitjacket of “modern linguistics”? When linguistics . Until this is recognised, attempts
the reasons for the decline in grammar skills is decades of attempts to improve grammar to reform the teaching of Grammar “using
the fact that for much of the past sixty years, teaching with the its help seem to have modern linguistics” may be like rearranging the
the subject was largely or entirely excluded provided few tangible results, maybe it’s time deck chairs on the Titanic.
from school curricula. Though this has now to change tack. Of course it takes courage Divorced from Linguistics, grammar can
changed, the damage is done, leaving large to go against the grain of orthodoxy and say be explained in a way that is much more
numbers of English teachers in schools and “Let’s forget about modern linguistics and understandable to lay readers. There is no
language centres who themselves have had approach grammar teaching in a different and need for technical jargon, just for essential
little or no training in the subject . Those who independent way.” terminology, little need for morphosyntaxic
had most training are teachers whose degrees The teacher or researcher who adopts this analysis, just for semantics and of appropriate
involved a course or module in linguistics or approach will come up against plenty of examples. If post-linguistic Grammar were to
grammar where in most cases the approach resistance,; ut unless new approaches are tried, have three keywords, they would be clarity,
was morphosyntactical, in line with linguistic then there can be no proof that they do not simplicity and relevance.
orthodoxy, and thus ill-suited to the needs succeed. Grammar existed before Linguistics,
of teaching . and while it would be fatuous to advocate a Andrew Rossiter, former
The issue of grammar teaching has been return to “traditional grammar”, divorcing
under the spotlight in the UK for at least forty the two would be a good start for any new head of Applied Languages at
years, but without reaching any consensual experiments. the University of Besançon –
Franche-Comté in France,
conclusion, and apparently without achieving It is worth noting here that the grammar
any great results. In How grammar is taught in teaching problem is particularly acute in the is the author of A Descriptive
England should change (sic) (2022), Dominic sphere of teaching English as a first language. Grammar of English (2020).
editorial@elgazette.com 31