An interesting article about grammar and Great Books

[TerriMI]

http://vereloqui.blo...elites-are.html

 

Above is a link to an article that stresses an interesting reason for teaching grammar. Lots of Christian content, so beware if you are opposed to reading any.

 

Whaddya say? I, for one, am so glad that me and my kids have studied grammar so intensively!

[8filltheheart]

Thank you for sharing the article. I found it a fascinating view and one which makes sense when you consider how "non-ordered" modern education has become. Whole word reading vs. phonics, new math vs. math instruction, journal/free response writing vs. formal writing instruction, etc. etc.

 

Logic requires orderly thinking. Deconstructing propaganda requires the ability to formally analyze language and logical argument.

 

W/o the foundation to analyze language, manipulation of language leads acceptance.

 

(ETA: thinking about this more, it also makes sense in the fact that then there are no "absolutes" or "truths.")

[Guest inoubliable]

http://vereloqui.blo...elites-are.html

 

Above is a link to an article that stresses an interesting reason for teaching grammar. Lots of Christian content, so beware if you are opposed to reading any.

 

Whaddya say? I, for one, am so glad that me and my kids have studied grammar so intensively!

 

 

"...my kids and I*..."

 

Just saying.

[ladydusk]

Ok, interesting article but who can tell me the artist that made that painting in the article?

 

I hate when articles have unaccredited art!

 

Ds noticed it and liked it so-I want to know.

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanderer_above_the_Sea_of_Fog

 

 

[Mergath]

*snort* I think the author of that little piece is taking several quotes and ideas out of context and twisting them into... well, I'm not quite sure what. People who stress grammar do so because they want their children to have a solid understanding of language. Period.

 

And as one of the liberal, well-educated elites mentioned in the article, we value grammar. I don't see any inconsistency between being a non-Christian and teaching grammar.

 

I do think the author has quite the ego on behalf of his religious beliefs, though. Not everything is about being pro-God or anti-God. Sometimes a noun is just a noun.

[regentrude]

Ok, interesting article but who can tell me the artist that made that painting in the article?

 

 

Caspar David Friedrich.

 

ETA:you just have to scroll over the picture and look at the image link displayed on the bottom of the page.

But I knew anyway, because he is one of my favorites. And from my home town.

[regentrude]

*snort* I think the author of that little piece is taking several quotes and ideas out of context and twisting them into... well, I'm not quite sure what. People who stress grammar do so because they want their children to have a solid understanding of language. Period.

 

And as one of the liberal, well-educated elites mentioned in the article, we value grammar. I don't see any inconsistency between being a non-Christian and teaching grammar.

 

I do think the author has quite the ego on behalf of his religious beliefs, though. Not everything is about being pro-God or anti-God. Sometimes a noun is just a noun.

 

 

I did not understand this either. What does religion have to do with grammar???

I have not found teaching and valuing of grammar to be unique to a particular religion; atheists teach and use correct grammar, too.

 

The Western view of language does indeed betray this prejudice. It is the assumption that behind our speech and our writing is an underlying order, an order that, being universal, is the foundation and operative principle of every human language—the assumption that the universe at bottom is fundamentally rational because it was authored—and is ruled—by a rational God.

 

Language is orderly because it was "authored" , i.e. developed, by humans endowed with the capability for rational thought.

As a scientist, I can appreciate the fundamental rational order to the universe entirely without invoking a creator. It is sufficient to accept the rule of the laws of physics.

These two things do not necessarily have anything to do with each other; physics and linguistics are two different beasts.

 

 

I also do not understand whom the author refers to by the term "educational elites". My colleagues at the university's English department are most definitely pro grammar - but maybe being an English professor is not "elite" or "educated" enough?

[Jennifer3141]

I think to make a claim like this author does, one would have to not understand the very foundations of language and its purpose in our lives.

 

And what I do not understand about ANYONE is why they would be happy or proud NOT to be an educational elitist? Since when did being stupid become a source of pride?? Good gravy, aren't there enough idiots in the world without the smart ones happily trying to be stupid??

[Jennifer3141]

nm

Edited April 4, 2013 by Moderator
Lose the snark, please.

[PachiSusan]

Thank you for sharing the article. There is a lot of meat to digest in it!

[8filltheheart]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what "studying grammar" actually means in terms of classical education. It is not the modern view of simply teaching parts of speech, and if really into it, diagramming.

 

My frame of reference is based on the Ratio Studiorum from 1599 which strongly influenced the education system in Europe. In those centuries right around the implementation of the Ratio, grammar (not an age or a stage or a 10 min review of nouns/verbs/adjs) was the basic level of education and up to a 3 yr course of study. It consisted of Latin, Greek, (with the language studies involving translating to the vernacular and back into Latin/Greek Cicero, Ovid, etc),poetry memorization/recitations, competitions, etc. This link to the Ratio describes exactly what was expected to occur in the classroom. (for the grammar classes, scroll down to pages 88-94)

http://admin.wyk.edu.hk/documents/A01%20Jesuit%20Education%20%26%20Ignatian%20Pedagogy/Ratio%20Studiorum.htm

 

Here is part of the description of the highest (level 3) grammar class:

 

1. The aim of this class is to achieve a com-

plete and perfect knowledge of grammar. The teacher

shall therefore review syntax from the beginning, add-

ing all the exceptions. Then he shall explain figures

of speech and rules of prosody. In Greek, however, he

shall cover the eight parts of speech or whatever is

embraced under the name of rudiments except dialects

and the more unusual variations. The reading matter

in prose in the first semester shall be taken from the

more important of Cicero’s letters Ad Familiares, Ad

Atticum, Ad Quintum Fratrem; in the second semester,

his De Amicitia, De Senectute, Paradoxa, and the like.

From the poets, in the first semester, some selected

and expurgated elegies and epistles of Ovid should be

taken, and in the second semester expurgated selections

from Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, the eclogues of

Vergil, or also some of the easier books of Virgil,

such as the fourth book of the Georgics and the fifth

 

85

 

and seventh books of the Aeneid. In Greek, St. John

Chrysostom, Aesop, Agapetus, and such authors are to

be taken.

 

2. The division of time shall be as follows.

For the first hour in the morning, recital of grammar

and Cicero from memory to the decurions, while the

teacher corrects the themes collected by the decurions,

meantime assigning various exercises to the pupils, as

described in the fourth rule below. In the second hour

the prelection of Cicero will be briefly repeated and

new matter explained, followed by a quiz for half an

hour. Finally, the subject and outline of content for

an assigned composition is dictated. During the last

half hour the grammar lesson is reviewed, a new lesson

explained and questions asked on it. Sometimes a com-

petition may occupy this period. In the first semester

there shall be a rapid review of the grammatical con-

structions seen in the previous class, then the matter

proper to this class is to be taken up. On alternate

days the general rules of prosody, omitting the excep-

tions, are to be explained. In the second semester there

must be at least a two months’ review of that part of

grammar belonging to the lowest class, and every second

day the rules of prosody already explained are to be

reviewed briefly and rapidly, leaving the necessary

amount of time for explaining the other rules. After

finishing the review of grammar, prosody is to be ex-

plained every day, including the exceptions, the verse

forms and the rules that are given for the formation

of patronymics and accent.

 

In the first half hour of the afternoon the poet

or Greek author is to be recited from memory, while

the teacher looks over the marks of the decurions and

corrects either the morning exercises or the homework

not yet corrected. The following hour and a half is

to be divided between a review and a prelection of the

Latin poet and a prelection and written work in Greek.

A little more than half an hour is to be devoted to

Greek. The last half hour, or whatever remains of it,

shall be spent in a class contest.

 

 

I personally cannot fathom that depth of education devoted to complete immersion into language. I am not sure anyone in modern times can b/c I cannot imagine that sort of education being offered any where.

 

Whether or not you disagree with Cothran's argument is another issue. But, modern education/educators do not educate in grammar in classical terms.......not even classical educators or providers like MP. My interpretation of the article was based on the above understanding of "grammar"----disciplined mental training in translating classical literature and Church Fathers with strong emphasis on memorization, orations, and competitions.

[extendedforecast]

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

Language is orderly because it was "authored" , i.e. developed, by humans endowed with the capability for rational thought.

 

 

I would go further than that and say that many languages, especially English, are barely orderly at all. Kepler's laws of motion: there's order! But English grammar is a total mess: there are few rules that have no exceptions, many special cases, and people break the rules all the time without losing meaning. Moreover, it is continually evolving, and when we collectively decide that a certain grammar rule no longer holds, we make up new rules which become standard over time.

 

Now, I think it is important (and fun!) to study grammar, the messiness and chaos is one reason we need to study it in such depth.

[Mergath]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what "studying grammar" actually means in terms of classical education. It is not the modern view of simply teaching parts of speech, and if really into it, diagramming.

 

My frame of reference is based on the Ratio Studiorum from 1599 which strongly influenced the education system in Europe. In those centuries right around the implementation of the Ratio, grammar (not an age or a stage or a 10 min review of nouns/verbs/adjs) was the basic level of education and up to a 3 yr course of study. It consisted of Latin, Greek, (with the language studies involving translating to the vernacular and back into Latin/Greek Cicero, Ovid, etc),poetry memorization/recitations, competitions, etc. This link to the Ratio describes exactly what was expected to occur in the classroom. (for the grammar classes, scroll down to pages 88-94)

http://admin.wyk.edu...o Studiorum.htm

 

Here is part of the description of the highest (level 3) grammar class:

 

 

 

I personally cannot fathom that depth of education devoted to complete immersion into language. I am not sure anyone in modern times can b/c I cannot imagine that sort of education being offered any where.

 

Whether or not you disagree with Cothran's argument is another issue. But, modern education/educators do not educate in grammar in classical terms.......not even classical educators or providers like MP. My interpretation of the article was based on the above understanding of "grammar"----disciplined mental training in translating classical literature and Church Fathers with strong emphasis on memorization, orations, and competitions.

 

 

If you read the article, it's clear he's writing about the kind of grammar kids learn in elementary schools today, not the kind you're referencing. I highly doubt the National Council of Teachers would have an official stance on children studying Latin and Greek in the context of sixteenth century education.

[Mergath]

I would go further than that and say that many languages, especially English, are barely orderly at all. Kepler's laws of motion: there's order! But English grammar is a total mess: there are few rules that have no exceptions, many special cases, and people break the rules all the time without losing meaning. Moreover, it is continually evolving, and when we collectively decide that a certain grammar rule no longer holds, we make up new rules which become standard over time.

 

Now, I think it is important (and fun!) to study grammar, the messiness and chaos is one reason we need to study it in such depth.

 

 

No kidding! If the English language is an example of divine order, the universe must have been drunk that day. ;)

[aggieamy]

I don't know that I agree with the article but it was certainly interesting. Thanks for posting.

[8filltheheart]

 

 

If you read the article, it's clear he's writing about the kind of grammar kids learn in elementary schools today, not the kind you're referencing. I highly doubt the National Council of Teachers would have an official stance on children studying Latin and Greek in the context of sixteenth century education.

 

 

I did read the article. Cothran is the editor of The Classical Teacher, so he is definitely writing from classical perspective. His references at the beginning of the article to Tolstoy demonstrates the shift away from classical education that had already started to occur in the 1800s. The shift away from the serious study of language has done nothing but increase to the point that it is reduced to a small fraction of education.

[aggieamy]

re: The Wanderer above the Sea of Fog.

 

In the last month I have randomly seen that picture in five different unrelated places. I wonder if the universe is telling me I need to start having an appreciation for the painting.

[Corraleno]

The author states that "Grammar is the formal study of language," and he specifically cites the National Council of Teachers of English as part of the "educational elite" that opposes the study of formal grammar, so it really does sound like he's talking about grammar, not studying and reciting Greek & Latin.

 

Although, FWIW, by the time my DS graduates HS, he will have had an education in classical languages that is pretty close to what is described in the Ratio Studiorum. He will have had 4 years of Latin, including AP, and 5-6 years of Greek. He's doing his first recitation in Greek next week, and he's memorized the first page of the Iliad, in both Greek and English, just from having read and listened to it so much. As for competitions, he does the NLE and NGE every year. He also understands grammar on a much deeper and more theoretical level than just "English grammar" or "Latin grammar" because he studies linguistics and other languages as well.

 

But I don't see what grammar has to do with religion, nor do I agree that the "educational elites" are trying to do away with grammar in order to somehow deny the existence of God. I think there are some pretty huge holes in his logic.

 

Jackie

[mysterious_jedi]

I don't know about this. I am both Christian and pro-grammar, but it seems a bit ludicrous to equate the two. Also, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an English teacher who does not want the students to use proper grammar.

[8filltheheart]

The author states that "Grammar is the formal study of language," and he specifically cites the National Council of Teachers of English as part of the "educational elite" that opposes the study of formal grammar, so it really does sound like he's talking about grammar, not studying and reciting Greek & Latin.

 

 

I guess I just read it differently. The article begins with a multi-cultural group of individuals (not just English) from the 1800s discussing education and the worth of classical education (which in the 1800s was based on Greek and Latin, not just the country's vernacular language.) And then progresses to Western philosophy, which again is based on its classical roots. The references to the NCTE is combined with his reference to "The Closing of the American Mind." Only those last 4 paragraphs speak only about grammar as in the modern understanding. (though I know nothing about Bloom's book. It may be as simple as the modern view of grammar. I have no idea.) I took it as a whole to represent the complete shift away from language studies (not just vernacular language) as foundational to something cursory.

 

Although, FWIW, by the time my DS graduates HS, he will have had an education in classical languages that is pretty close to what is described in the Ratio Studiorum. He will have had 4 years of Latin, including AP, and 5-6 years of Greek. He's doing his first recitation in Greek next week, and he's memorized the first page of the Iliad, in both Greek and English, just from having read and listened to it so much. As for competitions, he does the NLE and NGE every year. He also understands grammar on a much deeper and more theoretical level than just "English grammar" or "Latin grammar" because he studies linguistics and other languages as well.

 

His studies sound amazing. My ds would have loved that level of study and regrets not having studied Greek. It sounds about as close as one is going to find today. I picture the competitions, though, to be more along the lines of the competitions that Augustine describes in his writings......oral competitions which were highly competitive. (don't know where you would find a Latin oral competition?? LOL! Kind of hard with a dead language. ;) )

 

But I don't see what grammar has to do with religion, nor do I agree that the "educational elites" are trying to do away with grammar in order to somehow deny the existence of God. I think there are some pretty huge holes in his logic.

 

Jackie

 

 

He does have holes in his logic. I can definitely respect that others don't follow his argument. I do find it an interesting perspective from the angle that structured language studies were once foundational to education and now there is very little about language studies that are structured. I hadn't really put those pieces together before.

[ElizabethB]

This discussion brings up a question I have about the decline of Latin and Grammar, I prefer answers in a non-controversial thread, please:

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/466968-was-it-all-livys-fault/#entry4876068

[Giraffe]

re: The Wanderer above the Sea of Fog.

 

In the last month I have randomly seen that picture in five different unrelated places. I wonder if the universe is telling me I need to start having an appreciation for the painting.

 

No kidding! I have also run across it a few times and was wondering the same thing myself!

[TerriMI]

"...my kids and I*..."

 

Just saying.

 

 

Heheh : ) Yep. Knew the formal convention and just chose to stay with my informal tone (another convention) !

[TerriMI]

Fairness, I think, requires us to refrain from saying that the article is saying something more or something other than it intends. For instance, we can do without saying that the article is only addressing the English language. Cothran is saying something about language, and thus grammar, in general, that it touches on and reflects the meaning of the universe. He connects this idea to education and of course Christianity.,

 

It is also unfair to dismiss an idea by setting it up as a simple appeal to an audience. You have to know someone intimately to even start guessing accurately about motivations. It is better to grapple with the idea within someone's writing or speaking.

 

And then, it is unfruitful, not helpful, to dismiss it because it is not in the form of a logical treatise. He does know how to do these; it is something that he actually teaches in his logic curriculum. He has not made all of the logical connections, but it doesn't mean that they aren't there. The enthymemes, unstated parts of the logical thinking, are there by implication. You can dig them out if you think about it. This is how logic goes when it is in the realm of rhetoric; it uses enthymemes. Sometimes people confuse and then substitute fallacies for implications. That is, they think they are presenting the implications, when in reality, they are presenting fallacies of assumption or diversion. In doing so, they really just reveal the need for studying logic.

[TerriMI]

Maybe someone would be interested in my take on it, how I see some of the "holes in the logic" being filled. I'll work on a post in my word processor so that I don't delete it by accident again just in case there is someone. It won't be a logical treatise, but will be just an informal working through of some of the enthymemes, a little bit of philosophy, which is all I am good for right now at my level of education.

Elite. Elitism.

 

I'm not sure I buy the argument that elitists don't like grammar. There's no elitism quite like grammar snobbery -- I should know, I am one!

[VeritasMama]

Well, when I attended University and recieved my BS degree I. elementary Education, my language arts classes included absolutely no grammar instruction, methods, theory, we never once even discussed grammar, not even as a concept. I had plenty of instruction in phonics, reading comprehension, literary analysis, etc. Grammar was to be taught informally as part of writer's workshop. It wasn't called grammar, it was called "traits of writing."

 

Once out of college, I didn't see a formal, systematic, and thorough grammar curriculum until I decided to stay home and homeschool, at which point I discovered classical education.

 

Just google "whole language" and you'll see that the type of language instruction Cochran is speaking of has been eradicated in many schools by well meaning administrators and teachers who think that the classical model is out of date. Public backlash caused the " whole language" model to be officially abandoned, but it has reared it's head again and is simply repackaged with another name.

 

After learning more about language instruction and the classical education model, I am now aware that I was taught the "whole language model" in college, slightly modified and without the label. I think that this language arts model is why many students are illiterate.

 

I graduated 10 years ago.

[PachiSusan]

Well, when I attended University and recieved my BS degree I. elementary Education, my language arts classes included absolutely no grammar instruction, methods, theory, we never once even discussed grammar, not even as a concept. I had plenty of instruction in phonics, reading comprehension, literary analysis, etc. Grammar was to be taught informally as part of writer's workshop. It wasn't called grammar, it was called "traits of writing."

 

Once out of college, I didn't see a formal, systematic, and thorough grammar curriculum until I decided to stay home and homeschool, at which point I discovered classical education.

 

Just google "whole language" and you'll see that the type of language instruction Cochran is speaking of has been eradicated in many schools by well meaning administrators and teachers who think that the classical model is out of date. Public backlash caused the " whole language" model to be officially abandoned, but it has reared it's head again and is simply repackaged with another name.

 

After learning more about language instruction and the classical education model, I am now aware that I was taught the "whole language model" in college, slightly modified and without the label. I think that this language arts model is why many students are illiterate.

 

I graduated 10 years ago.

 

My niece and two nephews were in a California pilot program for pure Whole Language. They can't read or spell to save their lives, and their grammar is abysmal.

[cavscout96]

I would go further than that and say that many languages, especially English, are barely orderly at all. Kepler's laws of motion: there's order! But English grammar is a total mess: there are few rules that have no exceptions, many special cases, and people break the rules all the time without losing meaning. Moreover, it is continually evolving, and when we collectively decide that a certain grammar rule no longer holds, we make up new rules which become standard over time.

 

Now, I think it is important (and fun!) to study grammar, the messiness and chaos is one reason we need to study it in such depth.

 

 

I think this is because modern English has so many words draw from other languages, french, spainish, italian, Latin, gaelic, middle english.....