Topic: Grammar with a Purpose

10-second review: Base the teaching of grammar on problems that can be predictably expected in compositions. These problems involve sentence structure, punctuation and usage. Composition should be taught at the same time as grammar so that students can apply their knowledge of grammar to their compositions. The purpose for a knowledge of grammar in composition? To polish writing.

Title: “Grammar and Composition.” Teaching English, How To…. Raymond Stopper. Xlibris, 2004. pp. 164-206.

Grammar with a Purpose.

Grammar and Usage

Grammar seems to have its greatest effect in helping students learn correct usage. Should the pronoun be “he” or “him”? What about the expressions used by that famous all-star, millionaire basketball player Allen Iverson, “I should have went to practice”? Subject-verb agreement: “Each of the kids have one” (from a Cellular One TV ad). Formation of the possessive. How many people confuse “it’s” the contraction with “its” the possessive form of “it”? Comparison of adjectives and adverbs: “She was the younger sister” (of two sisters), but “She was the youngest child” (of three or more children). Confusion of adverbs and adjectives as in “You did real good.” The confusion between “lie” and “lay” as in “I’m going to go lay in the sun” or “Fido, lay down” or “The building is laying in ruins” (recent Action News WPVI local newscast). Some of these points of usage may seem “nit-picky,” but, fair or not, people are judged by their language and mistakes in usage can bring judgments of “uneducated” and “illiterate” from employers and colleagues who respect the correct use of language.

Beyond usage, punctuation and basic problems like run-on sentences and sentence fragments, a knowledge of grammar is useful for resolving problems in coherence, the flow of expression: active and passive voice; dangling and misplaced modifiers; parallel structure and faulty coordination; sexist language; style—needless repetition of words like “it,” “thing,” “get,” and “there”; clear reference between pronouns and antecedents; consistent tense in the use of verbs in complex sentences; and clear and awkward expression, all of which interfere with coherence, the ability of the reader to start at the beginning and to read through to the end without distraction.

Avoiding distractions and achieving “flow”: they are two effects of a knowledge of grammar on writing. They help writers polish their prose.

Next Blog: Problems in Teaching Grammar.

Topic: Grammar--Why Did You Teach It?

10-second review: Base the teaching of grammar on problems that can be predictably expected in compositions. These problems involve sentence structure, punctuation and usage. Composition should be taught at the same time as grammar so that students can apply their knowledge of grammar to their compositions. The purpose for a knowledge of grammar in composition? To polish writing.

Title: “Grammar and Composition.” Teaching English, How To…. Raymond Stopper. Xlibris, 2004. pp. 164-206.

“Why did you teach it?”

Mrs. May was reputed to be the best teacher in the high school. She taught foreign languages—I think mainly Spanish. She was matronly in appearance and had little time for wasting time.

I thought I was a pretty good teacher that first year, so I decided to ask the best teacher in the school to observe my teaching and reinforce my good opinion of myself. I am glad I did. I never forgot what she taught me. One morning I saw her slip into a seat in the back of the classroom. With supreme confidence I kept right on teaching.

Using the grammar book, I was teaching the difference between the direct object and the predicate nominative to a class of ‘Ag boys,’ young men enrolled in the agricultural program offered by our rural high school. Many of these boys were bright and headed for college. I really did explain well the essential difference between the direct object and predicate nominative by highlighting on the blackboard action verbs followed by the direct object (vertical line between the verb and direct object, “The boy hit | the ball) and verbs of being—‘be,’ ‘am,’ ‘is,’ ‘are,’ ‘was,’ ‘were,’ and any verb ending in ‘be,’ ‘being,’ or ‘been’—followed by the predicate nominative (slanted line toward the subject: “It was\ she who left first.”). I felt good about teaching a pretty dull topic. The boys were bright enough to stay awake and seemed to understand the distinction.

As the students trooped out of the room, Mrs. May came up to talk to me. I expected praise.

“You did a pretty good job of showing the difference between direct objects and predicate nominatives,” she said. Then she hit me with a thunderbolt! “Why did you teach it?”

I was dumbfounded. I had never thought about “why?”—it was a necessary part of grammar—it had been drilled into me—and I had never asked why I was learning it. If I had answered her question, I would have said, “…because it was the next topic in the textbook.”

That would have sounded dumb, but I never answered her, because she told me why I should have been teaching it: “If you don’t come back tomorrow and explain to those students that they need to know the difference between the direct object and the predicate nominative in order to know when to use ‘I’ or ‘me,’ ‘he’ or ‘him,’ ‘she’ or ‘her,’ ‘we’ or ‘us’ and ‘they’ or ‘them,’ I guarantee they will forget what you taught them today in a very short time.”

“Oh,” I said and thought to myself, “So that’s why you need to know this stuff.”

Mrs. May smiled, turned around and left the room. And I decided that I would never teach grammar again without knowing why students needed it—in other words, how to apply it to their writing or speaking.

I began to define my purposes for teaching grammar—most frequently involving usage and punctuation. However, I would like to suggest one other purpose to which a knowledge of grammar can be applied—a purpose closely related to composition—coherence, that which achieves the flow of expression from beginning to end. Ideally, the reader begins to read, and, because of coherence, because of the flow, the reader can not stop reading, but feels compelled to proceed from beginning to end, uninterrupted. I have concluded that a knowledge of grammar can improve coherence, as well as correctness, and, therefore, can have a significant effect on improving writing.

Next Blog: Grammar with a Purpose.

Topic: Grammar Is Not Writing

10-second review: Base the teaching of grammar on problems that can be predictably expected in compositions. These problems involve sentence structure, punctuation and usage. Composition should be taught at the same time as grammar so that students can apply their knowledge of grammar to their compositions. The purpose for a knowledge of grammar in composition? To polish writing.

Title: “Grammar and Composition.” Teaching English, How To…. Raymond Stopper. Xlibris, 2004. pp. 164-206.

Grammar is not writing.

The problem with teaching English grammar has always been a lack of clear purpose. As a result, students may be taught grammar, but they soon forget it.

Throughout my elementary and secondary education, I had been drilled in grammar, particularly diagramming sentences. I was never taught to write. I know I wasn’t taught to write because when I went to college, I kept hearing people talk about term papers, and I honesty did not know what they were talking about. My first composition in my first English class at the university was returned with a surprisingly good grade, but with the comment that I had failed to include a summary paragraph. No one had ever told me about summary paragraphs.

But I do have memories of spending a great deal of time diagramming sentences. We did it year after year. Therefore, I was shocked when, in the summer before beginning my teaching career, our instructor asked us what we knew about diagramming, and almost no one in the teacher education class could remember what we had all spent such large amounts of time doing in our elementary and secondary English classes. In fact, the instructor had to show us how to diagram a complex sentence, knowledge we felt we needed as we began our English teaching careers. We were determined to perpetuate what we had been taught—even though I HATED diagramming, one of the most boring practices I had ever experienced in school. I was going to carry on that same boredom. I never thought to ask, “Why?”

However, several incidents in my first year of teaching helped me to change my approach to grammar and composition. Les Hornberger was the head of the business department in our high school. One of the sections I was teaching consisted of juniors who were business majors, his department. The year was 1956 and most of the young women in the business program and an occasional male would be going directly from high school to the working world. A local company that frequently employed our graduates was the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L), the electric utility for the area. Les, a tactful man, mentioned several times to me that PP&L was complaining about having to teach high school graduates how to write.

I did not understand what Les meant. I asked him, “Don’t they know their grammar?”

“It’s not grammar,” he said. “It’s how to write. For example, they need to teach high school graduates to use the ‘you’ point of view when writing to customers.” Gradually, I began to understand something I should have known all along: grammar was not composition.

I remember going down to Philadelphia one weekend to the Gimbel’s Department store book section and picking up every self-help guide to writing I could buy. I came home and read these books, and began to realize that students needed to be taught how to organize their expression, how to introduce, develop and summarize their ideas—and that grammar really had little to do with good writing, other than usage, punctuation and certain problems in sentence structure. I went so far as to write for my students my own “book” on how to write, a folksy little pamphlet, which my dad, a lawyer, criticized because I had written it from the “you” point of view. I began to teach composition along with the grammar. but I was still teaching grammar without asking, “Why am I teaching it?” which is where Mrs. May comes in.

Next blog: Mrs. May: “Why did you teach it?”

Topic: Why Teach Grammar?

10-second review: Base the teaching of grammar on problems that can be predictably expected in compositions. These problems involve sentence structure, punctuation and usage. Composition should be taught at the same time as grammar so that students can apply their knowledge of grammar to their compositions. The purpose for a knowledge of grammar in composition? To polish writing.

Title: “Grammar and Composition.” Teaching English, How To…. Raymond Stopper. Xlibris, 2004. pp. 164-206.

Why Teach Grammar?

In this chapter (Chapter 9), I describe a program in which writing and grammar are taught concurrently and in which the teaching of grammar is problem-centered and taught within the context of instruction in the writing process, using textbook exercises, mini-lessons, 10-minute essays, the textbook as reference with major writing assignments to insure correctness and sentence combining to improve style.

The purpose of most grammar instruction is correctness in usage, sentence structure and punctuation, the editing part of the writing process. But I attempt to show that a knowledge of grammar is useful in achieving coherence, in which the reader follows the writer’s text, uninterrupted, undistracted, from beginning to end, the polish for prose.

Directions: Please read the following sentences:

Two days of unseasonably beautiful weather has gotten Plattsburgh Mayor Daniel Stewart to think about some spring cleaning. Its’ unique tangy blend of herbs and spices bring out the natural taste of steak. Recent record high temperatures followed by a cold snap worries local orhardists who say their apple crops are extremely vulnerable to the quick changes. Twenty minutes later, the ordeal ended anticlimactically when the driver ran out of gas on a freeway off-ramp, and laid down, spread eagle, on the ground. I should have went to practice. I should have ran better. Seven years ago, stuck in a midlife crisis, a therapist suggested I try envisioning my life five or 10 years down the road.

Did these sentences bother you as a reader? While reading these sentences, did you pause to speculate about what was wrong? Did you lose your concentration on the ideas because you were distracted by the mistakes? Were you more concerned with the mistakes than with the ideas?

Below, are the sources for the mistakes:

1. Two days of unseasonably beautiful weather has gotten Plattsburgh Mayor Daniel Stewart to think about some spring cleaning. Plattsburgh Press-Republican. 4/18/02. Thursday. Internet. [Subject/verb agreement.]

2. “Its’ unique tangy blend of herbs and spices bring out the natural taste of steak.” Found by an English teacher on a bottle of Heinz57 Sauce. Company officials were not aware of the mistakes. Daily Local News, West Chester, PA., Apr. 21, p. B6. [Possessive pronoun. Subject/verb agreement.]

3. Recent record high temperatures followed by a cold snap worries local orchardists who say their apple crops are extremely vulnerable to the quick changes. Plattsburgh Press-Republican. 4/30/02. Tuesday. Internet. [Subject/verb agreement.]

4. Twenty minutes later, the ordeal ended anticlimactically when the driver ran out of gas on a freeway off-ramp, and laid down, spread eagle, on the ground. Wall Street Journal. Oct. 11, 2002. Internet. [Lie, lay, lain; lay, laid, laid.]

5. “I should have went to practice.” Allen Iverson, at a press conference after being criticized by his coach Larry Brown for missing practice. [“Have gone….”]

6. “I should have ran better.” Professional football player, in an interview on network television, commenting on his failure to gain yardage. [“Have run…."]

7. Seven years ago, stuck in a midlife crisis, a therapist suggested I try envisioning my life five or 10 years down the road. Daily Local News, West Chester, PA. Nov. 27, 2002, p. A3. [Dangling modifier: “…when I was stuck in a midlife crisis….]

What are the purposes for teaching grammar? To be sure that readers are not distracted by mistakes like these and can concentrate on the ideas being expressed by the writer. A knowledge of grammar is helpful in achieving accurate editing, the last step in the writing process (which includes brainstorming, thesis, first draft, topic sentences, introductory paragraph, summary paragraph, revising, editing). A knowledge of grammar can also help a writer achieve coherence, the quality of writing that enables the reader to follow the writer’s flow of thought from beginning to end without distraction. In short, a knowledge of grammar can help to polish prose.

Next blog: Grammar is not writing.

Topic: Grammar, Composition and Research (2)

10-second review: Base the teaching of grammar on problems that can be predictably expected in compositions. These problems involve sentence structure, punctuation and usage. Composition should be taught at the same time as grammar so that students can apply their knowledge of grammar to their compositions. The purpose for a knowledge of grammar in composition? To polish writing.

Title: “Grammar and Composition.” Teaching English, How To…. Raymond Stopper. Xlibris, 2004. pp. 164-206.

Why does research show that grammar and composition are not related?

To me, it is common sense that grammar and composition should really have little effect on each other. They deal with different emphases in writing.

Composition deals with ideas, unity, coherence and paragraphs; grammar deals with sentence structure and related problems in usage and punctuation.

Composition in exposition deals with the arrangement of ideas, with making those ideas interesting and clear, with unity, summarized in an early thesis sentence, with introductory paragraphs, with paragraphs that develop topic sentences and with summary concluding paragraphs. Extend the writing from the essay to the chapter to the book—the arrangement is the same in expository writing.

Grammar, on the other hand, deals with the structure of sentences, with punctuation of sentences, and with usage—the last concern of the writer, after composing is almost completed—the editing stage of the writing process. Still, the editing is important to successful composition, especially since mistakes will distract the reader from following the writer’s ideas.

Most tests of composition today use holistic scoring (the SAT’s 25-minute essay, for example, that provides almost no time for editing), and requires raters not to pay undue attention to grammatical, punctuation or usage mistakes. Raters focus on ideas, clarity, development of those ideas in a five-paragraph arrangement, with the introduction, including a thesis sentence, topic sentences for middle paragraphs and a final, summarizing paragraph. Unless the composition is loaded with mistakes, grammatical mistake here or there will be little noticed in holistic scoring.

But what does grammar do to make writing effective?

A knowledge of grammar helps students to polish writing, especially in style and correctness. Mistakes in writing, unless intentionally made as a point of style, distract the reader. Good writing causes readers to begin at the beginning, to move quickly from point to point, from beginning to end, without distractions and concludes with a memorable thought that leaves the reader in complete command of the writer’s ideas.

In my opinion, the problem with teaching grammar is that it has been taught without clear purpose, which is the application to writing—and speaking.

In the next few blogs, I am going to tell you the story of how I discovered that grammar was not writing and how I learned to teach grammar with clear purpose so that students applied their knowledge of grammar to writing, thus eliminating the reader’s distractions because of mistakes.

To be continued: Why Teach Grammar?

Topic: Grammar, Composition and Research (1)

10-second review: On the basis of five studies, English teachers across America threw away their grammar books. Should they have?

Title: “The Relation of Formal Grammar to Composition.” J Neuleib. College Composition and Communication (October 1977), 247-250. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).

Summary/Quote: “Where do you go to find out about ‘all’ the research? There are a few summaries available, but not many. And there are some good studies, but not many. You, as a teacher, need to read five studies which summarize what we know now” (1977).

RJ Harris, “An Experimental Inquiry into the Functions and Value of Formal Grammar in the Teaching of English, with Special Reference to the Teaching of Correct Written English to Children Aged Twelve to Fourteen.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1962.

John Mellon, Transformational Sentence-Combining (Champaign, Illinois: NCTE Research Report No. 10, 1969).

DB Bateman and FJ Zidonis, The Effect of a Study of Transformational Grammar on the Writing of Ninth and Tenth Graders (Champaign, Illinois: NCTE Research Report, No. 6, 1966).

Frank O’Hare, Sentence Combining (Urbana, Illinois: NCTE Research Report No. 15, 1973).

WB Elley, IH Barham, H Lamb, and W Wyllie, “The Role of Grammar in a Secondary School English Curriculum,” Research in the Teaching of English 10 (Spring 1976).

One of the most influential studies in eliminating grammar from the English curriculum was the Elly study. The author of this article, Neuleib, says of Elly, et al.’s study: “It becomes clear that at least in this one study, no grammar works quite as well as any grammar instruction.” She further points out that, according to the Elly study, only very bright students benefit from grammar instruction, that grammar does not help in editing and that grammar instruction should be eliminated from the lower grades.

Neuleib says, “Before I toss away my grammar books in distress and wring my hands over the fate of usage in my composition classes, I have some questions to ask about this study and about the study of grammar.” Maybe grammar should be taught in high school and college English classes when students are more ready for its intricacies. She also says that the study must be replicated several times before accepting it as “evidence for drawing absolute conclusions” that grammar should be eliminated from the English curriculum.

Comment: I think Neuleib gives a very lame defense for the teaching of grammar.

For years, experts in the teaching of English have been saying that a knowledge of formal grammar has no effect on the improvement of composition. I have read the more recent research, proclaimed at the time to be conclusive evidence for this lack of relationship between a knowledge of grammar and achievement in composition, Mellon, 1969, and Elley, et al., 1976, two of the five studies mentioned in the preceding article.

I discovered that neither study gave the formal grammar group the carefully articulated instructions they gave to the experimental group; that is, the researchers never defined clearly what is meant by “teaching formal grammar.” The studies implied that simply following a textbook was teaching “formal grammar,” without enthusiasm and relying strictly on following the activities, usually exercises, in the text from chapter to chapter. And in one of the studies the formal grammar group actually outscored the experimental group in ratings of writing (Mellon, 1969).

How should formal grammar be taught? How do I define formal grammar? Next time.

To be continued

Topic. Speaking: How to Be a Good Reader of TV News

10-second review: Some common sense tips on how to read TV news effectively.

Title: “Writing the Word We hear: TV News Writing.” Herb Brubaker, TV News Center. The Quill. Vol. 89, Issue 1, 2001, p. 55.

Ideas:

Be direct. Omit needless words.

Use strong verbs. Avoid adjectives and adverbs.

Write for the ear. You have only one chance to make a point. The listener can’t read it.

Use short, conversational sentences.

Use elliptical sentences. No need to repeat, “He said,” “she said.”

Attribute sources at the beginning, not the end.

Use the active voice.

Read copy aloud with a stop watch. Read with your ear.

Break up the leads into several short sentences. [Significant. RayS.]

Reporter should pick up the lead, not repeat, what the anchor has said.

Let others read and comment on your copy.

Comment: After discussing these ideas and their implications with your students, analyze and critique pre-recorded news programs. RayS.

Note: You will gain much clearer understanding of these tips from reading the complete article.