Grammar gets more respect

By: Dennis M. Clausen - Commentary | Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:28 PM PDT

I suppose it was only a matter of time before a university professor who writes a column would start talking about English grammar. For readers who want to run for the exits at the mere mention of the word, this is your first opportunity.

For years, most of my students at the University of San Diego indicated that they studied very little grammar in their local K-12 classes. In recent years, however, informal surveys of my students reveal that instruction in grammar is back in vogue in our local schools. My son, a fifth grader, is studying so much grammar that I gave him one of my college handbooks to use as a reference tool.

The San Diego County Office of Education certainly believes grammar is an essential tool in the teaching of English composition. Searching the SDCOE's Web site for the word "grammar" reveals numerous programs to assist teachers and students who are struggling with the rules of English grammar. The SDCOE's Web site, which reflects the courses and subjects that are taught in our local schools, is reassuring to those of us who still believe grammar plays an important role in the writing and editing process.

History has witnessed some wild swings in the way grammar is taught. The generations prior to 1960 were thoroughly indoctrinated in the rules of grammar. The 1960s and 1970s saw a 180-degree swing in the other direction, as many educators argued that grammar should not be taught at all. Instead, they believed students would naturally learn the principles of grammar if they were required to read and write extensively.

Today, the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction again. The new SAT has a multiple-choice section on grammar that will require K-12 teachers to teach the subject at all grade levels. These educators will seldom win popularity contests. They may, however, be the difference between a student receiving a letter of acceptance or rejection from a major university.

There was a time when some of my students referred to me ---- none too affectionately, I am afraid ---- as the "grammar god" because of my relentless insistence that their writing had to respect the basic rules of English grammar. I have mellowed somewhat. I have seen too many writers with a little knowledge of English grammar lord it over others who occasionally violate some obscure grammatical rule. On the other hand, I am loath to join the ranks of those who insist instruction in grammar serves no useful purpose.

Students do not need to memorize 300 pages of grammar to be effective writers, but they do need to understand some basic grammatical principles to edit their papers more effectively if they are to succeed in our universities and in life.

Grammar is merely a set of conventions that have evolved over the years so writers can communicate their ideas more clearly and forcefully. Without these conventions, traffic on the information highway would move as slowly and chaotically as traffic on our city streets if we removed all signs and traffic lights.

Nuff said!

Escondido resident Dennis M. Clausen is a freelance columnist for the North County Times and a professor of American literature at the University of San Diego.

Tags:

Bookmark and Share

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:16 AM:like uh i like and she like uh like dude. hey dude i dissed him and like dude whoa i was blwn away ;) Although this is not necessarily the current method of attempting to destroy the English language, I think that I made my point.

To Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 10:33 AM:People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...go back and take a look at your many posts before making too much of a point.

Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 1:35 PM:Like, Whoa, "To Alf" at 10:33am. Dude. I was pointing out how using current slang will oftentimes manage to bury whatever message there is, in incomprehensible jibberish. My construction frequently leaves much to be desired and the misplacement of the occasional apostraphe is certainly irritating, however, the message is always plainly there (not their or theyre or they're). If the purpose is communication and the vehicle is the written word, then "i like and she like DUDE" conveys little, if any, information to people who do not speak their (not there or they're) "dialect". My glass house, unlike my real house, has many cracks, failure to communicate my message is not one of those cracks. Ja?

To Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 2:16 PM:Latin is "incomprehensible jibberish", also, to those who do not go to great lengths to study it. Communications requires a message, a medium, and a reciever.

Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:45 PM:You are quite correct, "To Alf". The prevalent language here is English and, although Spanish is on the rise, proficiency on the part of the sender (brain), the medium (the written or spoken word) and the receiver (the reader or listener) in a common language is necessary. Since I want you to understand my message, it is my responsibility to use language that you will understand, not your responsibility to try to translate what I say or write. Problems occur when, although both parties are fluent in one language, English, one starts using a "language" unknown to the other, be it Latin or "gangsta (sic) rap" or any other current fad. The attitude that I insist that you must learn a different "language" to understand me, even though I am quite capable of speaking our common language, is selfish and not a way to influence people in a positive manner.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos