The Dissection of English
Is it really necessary to teach kids the complex components of language grammar?
I have to admit that I am conscious of how controversial this opinion might sound. It will certainly be viewed as a strange thing for a previous high school English teacher to propose, perhaps even a little subversive but it is something that I have been thinking about for a long time - why does the English government feel it is essential learning for children in primary education to know the components of language?
I started to ask myself this when I lived in Canada and could see discussion on social media websites with my English (nationality and subject) teacher friends about changes to the English curriculum at KS2 to assess children on specific parts of grammar, in a bid to raise standards, I presume. Suddenly, the recognition of subordinate clauses and adverbial phrases became of paramount importance, the language reduced to its component parts.
Now, having moved back to England and seeing my youngest son have to learn the names of grammatical terms that he has, to date, been incorporating into his own writing whilst being quite happily unaware of them, I am faced with the question again.
You see, I have a bit of a problem with this. It's not that I don't think that grammar is important. The correct syntax in a sentence is essential for understanding and clarity and I hate to read anything where I am struggling to completely comprehend the meaning.
Reading should be a joy, a gliding through words. Being confronted with somebody else's words where the essence of their meaning is something that needs to be gleaned from the shoddy way that the words have been put together is not always rewarding and can be frustrating - like panning for gold: a lot of work for very little reward. It would put me off, for sure.
Knowing a noun, verb and adjective, maybe preposition, conjunction and pronoun, even adverb (and there may be one of two others of importance that I have failed to mention), is probably about as far as grammar knowledge needs to go, in my opinion. Anything that may be mentioned in conversation or general language discussion would be useful for identification purposes only. I know that they are the building blocks of writing but I like to see writing as a craft rather than an exercise in "Word Lego". However, language is not exclusively for artistes - unlike other creative pastimes, the ability to communicate is essential for everyone in every day living, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on what you do for a job, which is why being able to do so effectively is so important. Not all of us can do it well but we can all do it to a lesser or greater degree.
But my question is, do we have to reduce it to bits in order to use it? Does deconstructing it make it easier to use? Or does it increase the dislike of English to someone who is not a good communicator? Or is the idea that showing how it can be put together facilitates greater understanding leading to increased enjoyment? I am not so sure. Because, like most things, some like language and others do not.
I am one of those that do. One of the reasons that I became a teacher is because I love putting words together and I love reading texts made by other people who love putting words together and I want young people to appreciate them too. There is something really satisfying about engaging with a written piece where you totally understand the message; or you read words that are so beautifully placed that, like a good piece of music, they resonate in some deeper way to which you relate on an entirely exclusive personal level; or you are wowed by what you are reading and where it is taking you and what it is evoking in you, creating pictures in your mind, love in your heart and respect for that writer's vision and the fact that they are able to share it with you in such exquisite terms.
What I have described there is an almost organic experience. I have talked about the way that reading makes me feel. And that is what I feel is becoming lost when language is dissected - the emotion and feeling behind it and the immersion in the experience.
I think that dissect is quite an apt word. It makes me think of things that are lifeless. It reminds me of ground-breaking science where the workings of things are magically revealed from a dissection of their component parts, whether inanimate, like a car, or a creature that has now expired. It reminds me of the eye of a bull that we had to cut apart or "dissect" in Biology class in my school years to examine the lens and the fluid that filled it and other such stuff - it was not a nice experience for me, vomit-inducing even. There was no magic there; no rolling in temper before hoof stamping and ground pawing threatened you. With regard to the dissection of dead things, I see the merit in it and I can also see the value in taking other things to pieces too, for instance, machines. They are dead; immobile; lacking verve.
However, applying these principles to language is, I think, wrong. Because language is a living thing, in my opinion; a thing that is evolving all the time, expanding and shrinking, dynamic and organic. It is not a science. I know that there are proponents of language analysis, and language theory was a unit on my English degree course (which I found incredibly baffling and dull) but ultimately, language is a conduit to meaning, a flowing path to understanding and enlightenment, and tearing it apart is destroying its ability to reach you.
When I was training to be a teacher, some of the students were concerned about teaching grammar at school as their understanding at that stage was limited, it not having been a curriculum focus when they were doing their qualifications at school. In response to this, the course leader, a lovely woman called Gill, decided to ask a grammar specialist to come and talk to us. I will never forget the collective gasp that was emitted by the post graduate student teacher contingent as the grammarian bamboozled us with grammar terms of which we were completely unaware. It was a mixture of horror, shock, disbelief, fear and defiance, which translated into words would be "Whoa! I'm not going to be able to teach that! I don't even know what that is, never mind being able to explain it to a class of undisciplined teenagers! What is this man talking about? This is a joke! I can't believe that this is considered important!" The elderly grammarian was soon ushered off the stage looking more perplexed than us in the end, his detailed grammar knowledge having fallen decidedly flat.
Extreme grammar dissection was thwarted that day but the threat is still at large.
Language is alive. Look at how language has changed through the ages. Trends come and go and so do words. Hardly anyone calls people a nincompoop anymore, which is in itself a shame, but there will be a word with more popular usage which will have replaced it, although I doubt it's in my vocabulary. Syntax changes - you only have to read novels from years past to notice this - so why put so much emphasis on knowing it? In fact, applauded writer that they are, it would be interesting to know if Dickens or perhaps Hardy were interviewed if they would indeed be able to recognise a related clause or an adverbial phrase in their own writings? I would conjecture more than likely not. And yet, would anyone question the power of their creations, their storytelling and their enduring appeal? Nope.
So, why make our children analyse texts to the nth degree by labelling the parts and having them know this? Why have we become a world obsessed with labelling things? Why not instead concentrate on getting our children to explain why a particular text makes them feel the way that they do? Examine the metaphors, the similes, the words choices themselves by all means as in that analysis can be found the key to deeper understanding but don't make language a jigsaw of bits - leave the delightful creation alone and let it be savoured for what it is - lyrical, emotive, thought-provoking, imaginative, persuasive, angry, disturbing.
Get them to empathise with characters and experience things, that they may never encounter, through the eyes of another: imagined worlds, other planets, frightening scenarios, the pursuit of the hunted, extremes, delights...
Don't take it apart. Let it remain a living thing, whole and vibrant.
Read it for its essence and teach our children to enjoy the process so that reading for pleasure and writing for expression endure. Don't make it a thing to be feared, to be bored by, a monotonous and quite frankly, gasp-inducing process.
Leave it alone, English government - and very much undissected.
About the Creator
Rachel Deeming
Mum, blogger, crafter, reviewer, writer, traveller: I love to write and I am not limited by form. Here, you will find stories, articles, opinion pieces, poems, all of which reflect me: who I am, what I love, what I feel, how I view things.
Reader insights
Outstanding
Excellent work. Looking forward to reading more!
Top insights
Easy to read and follow
Well-structured & engaging content
Expert insights and opinions
Arguments were carefully researched and presented
Heartfelt and relatable
The story invoked strong personal emotions
On-point and relevant
Writing reflected the title & theme
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.