English Grammar seems to have been gathered by a great deal of argumentation and claims advocated by old to modern grammarians. Grammar, a very essential branch of English language has been complimented on the one hand and maligned on the other, that to maintain a dispassionate view on the subject is very difficult. Apparently, we stand befogged.
The birth of confusion about Grammar, whether it is good or bad for students, happens because of two schools of thought prevailing on the subject, both extremely uncompromising.
There are on the one hand, the hidebound, the old grammarians, who push forward tall claims of grammar quoting “Grammar is the panacea for all the linguistic problems that students (may) face”. These claims, on the other hand, have been challenged by the modern educationists. Not only the latter disapproves the claims; they have their own strange demand for the immediate doom of Grammar.
Surprisingly, some modern educationists hold grammar solely responsible for student’s deficiency in the English language. Here’s a strange quandary!
The confusion about grammar originates from the distorted vision maintained by grammarians about the subject. The boastful claims about it are hardly tenable. As a matter of fact, grammar can never be a substitute for a language itself. At best, it is an aid to the language. It is an educational means to study behavioral patterns of words, their relative positions in a sentence, how they group together, and lastly, how they react on each other. It is a modification of current usages of words in a language.
Now the ‘pattern’ or ‘substitution’ method advocated by Palmer, French-Michael, Ryburn, ‘Hornby’ and a host of other modern educationists is psychologically sound. The method is potent enough to deliver the goods. But there are practical difficulties in the way. The courses of study recommended for school’s Examinations vary in contents and seem complex in nature. They leave little scope for the pursuit of a single subject with thoroughness to the neglect of the other items of the syllabus.
Thus, can we afford the amount of time and labor needed for the working of the pattern method which calls for a lot of patience, energy and resourcefulness, both on the part of the teachers and the students?
Moreover, where are the teachers with the requisite proficiency in English, with a breadth of vision and a zeal born of a mission to work out the system? The prospectus is really bleak and we shall not wonder if the method dies a natural death. Therefore, we are obliged to roll back upon grammar.
The grammarians themselves are to blame for the bad name grammar has acquired of late. English is a living language and like all living organisms it is bound to change. Old words drop out; new words step in. Words also sometimes change their old shade of meaning and take on a new one. Grammar, if it is to be a faithful mirror of the substance, has to keep up with the language. It must not shut out the newcomers and nurse the old ones, although the latter have long fallen in disuse.
Declaimer: The idea presented in the article is not mine. I borrowed it from a book authored by Mr. Sakal Sinha.
The birth of confusion about Grammar, whether it is good or bad for students, happens because of two schools of thought prevailing on the subject, both extremely uncompromising.
There are on the one hand, the hidebound, the old grammarians, who push forward tall claims of grammar quoting “Grammar is the panacea for all the linguistic problems that students (may) face”. These claims, on the other hand, have been challenged by the modern educationists. Not only the latter disapproves the claims; they have their own strange demand for the immediate doom of Grammar.
Surprisingly, some modern educationists hold grammar solely responsible for student’s deficiency in the English language. Here’s a strange quandary!
The confusion about grammar originates from the distorted vision maintained by grammarians about the subject. The boastful claims about it are hardly tenable. As a matter of fact, grammar can never be a substitute for a language itself. At best, it is an aid to the language. It is an educational means to study behavioral patterns of words, their relative positions in a sentence, how they group together, and lastly, how they react on each other. It is a modification of current usages of words in a language.
Now the ‘pattern’ or ‘substitution’ method advocated by Palmer, French-Michael, Ryburn, ‘Hornby’ and a host of other modern educationists is psychologically sound. The method is potent enough to deliver the goods. But there are practical difficulties in the way. The courses of study recommended for school’s Examinations vary in contents and seem complex in nature. They leave little scope for the pursuit of a single subject with thoroughness to the neglect of the other items of the syllabus.
Thus, can we afford the amount of time and labor needed for the working of the pattern method which calls for a lot of patience, energy and resourcefulness, both on the part of the teachers and the students?
Moreover, where are the teachers with the requisite proficiency in English, with a breadth of vision and a zeal born of a mission to work out the system? The prospectus is really bleak and we shall not wonder if the method dies a natural death. Therefore, we are obliged to roll back upon grammar.
The grammarians themselves are to blame for the bad name grammar has acquired of late. English is a living language and like all living organisms it is bound to change. Old words drop out; new words step in. Words also sometimes change their old shade of meaning and take on a new one. Grammar, if it is to be a faithful mirror of the substance, has to keep up with the language. It must not shut out the newcomers and nurse the old ones, although the latter have long fallen in disuse.
Declaimer: The idea presented in the article is not mine. I borrowed it from a book authored by Mr. Sakal Sinha.
No comments:
Post a Comment