Bauer vs. Beechick: Who's right on age to begin grammar?

[Violet Crown]

No one is arguing not to study grammar. We're discussing what age we will study it. I don't think most 1st graders study astronomy or anatomy, and most certainly not calculus and germ theory. We're not ignoring people who've devoted their lives to studying grammar. Just wondering at what age it needs to be formally introduced as a science.

I didn't say anyone was arguing not to study grammar. I'm sorry that I was unclear. The discussion seemed to be, in part, the purpose of studying grammar, with quite a bit of discussion about whether it ought to be studied in order to improve writing. I was putting forth the case for studying it for its own sake.

 

I beg to differ that those who study grammar for a living - chiefly linguists, analytic philosophers, and their sort - aren't ignored by most homeschoolers. But that was something of a rabbit trail, and I'm happy to withdraw the comment.

 

First graders do indeed study germ theory, astronomy, etc.: in an age-appropriate manner. You start with the solar system, why you wash your hands before eating, etc. Likewise, I've never had any problems beginning grammar at a young age. They hear Mommy or Daddy or Big Sister referring to a noun; they ask, What's a noun; they get told: Nouns are the thing-words that you can count; we add -s to the words to show there's more than one.

[Violet Crown]

I'd love to hear more! What is the traditional study of grammar that is outdated? Diagramming? And would MCT be what he would recommend, or something else?

 

 

A fundamental difference is that linguists understand grammar to be the rules governing language as actually spoken by native speakers, whereas traditional grammar understands it as a set of rules that ought to govern written and spoken language, without regard to the extent to which those rules are observed by native speakers.

 

Traditional grammar emphasizes categorization of words into a limited number of "parts of speech," primarily by examining the meaning of the word and determining if that meaning causes it to fall into one category or another. Linguists look instead at the grammatical properties, not the meaning of words and phrases.

 

An argument for this approach is that this is, in fact, how native speakers identify words and phrases. When Lewis Carroll tells us "all mimsy were the borogoves," we know mimsy to be an adjective and borogove to be a noun, without knowing whether the latter is a person, place, or thing, or whether mimsy describes it. We do this by intuitively understanding how the placement of the words in the phrase works, and by recognizing the -y and -s endings of the words. A modern grammatical approach thus takes advantage of the grammatical knowledge already present in a native speaker's mind, rather than requiring memorization of rules and comprehension of abstract categories.

 

Dh would recommend reading one of the introductions to grammar for the nonspecialist available, and teaching from that. Unfortunately nothing as far as I know has ever been written for the pre-college level.

 

 

If dear husband can write a thousand page book on pronouns, he ought to be able to write an alternative linguistically based grammar book for us. I'd be first in line to purchase a copy.Tell him to get cracking! :DBill

Unfortunately, he's all busy writing a book on conditionals, which I understand even less than I understand anaphora.

 

Progress on the dissertation was hugely accelerated by the sudden discovery that Great Girl was on the way and likely to be expensive. Don't know if I'm willing to go to those lengths again! :D

[RootAnn]

When Lewis Carroll tells us "all mimsy were the borogoves," we know mimsy to be an adjective and borogove to be a noun, without knowing whether the latter is a person, place, or thing, or whether mimsy describes it. We do this by intuitively understanding how the placement of the words in the phrase works, and by recognizing the -y and -s endings of the words.

 

Except my absolutely un-grammatical mind thinks that this is some sort of mathematical logic statement where mimsy contain the set borogoves but also contain other parts that are not borogoves. (Think of one circle labeled borogoves which is completely inside a larger circle labeled mimsy.) I absolutely don't think adjectives or nouns in the slightest.  :huh:

 

This might be why poor dd#2 completely failed one of those nonsensical readings where they wanted to know what described what where nothing made sense when being evaluated as part of vision therapy. She just threw her hands up and said the whole thing was gibberish.  :crying:

[Spy Car]

Unfortunately, he's all busy writing a book on conditionals, which I understand even less than I understand anaphora.

 

Progress on the dissertation was hugely accelerated by the sudden discovery that Great Girl was on the way and likely to be expensive. Don't know if I'm willing to go to those lengths again! :D

First, being "busy" in an inadequate excuse. Suggest he double-down.

 

Second, who wants a book on "conditionals?" If the man is going to support his family have him write a book we might actually purchase in mass :D

 

Barring that, tell him "no more complaining!" :p

 

Bill

[ElizaG]

 

Dh would recommend reading one of the introductions to grammar for the nonspecialist available, and teaching from that. Unfortunately nothing as far as I know has ever been written for the pre-college level.

 

I don't know about elementary school, but there were some junior high and high school English curricula in the late 50s and 60s that were based on structural linguistics.    If you search Google or JSTOR, you can find quite a few references.

 

Now, The New English:  Linguistics Coming to Junior Highs (Toledo Blade, June 28, 1966)

 

The experiment seems to have been more or less abandoned by the 1970s.   If it's anything like the "New Math," my guess is that it was poorly taught.    

 

It doesn't look as if anyone has written a history of this era.   If someone has time to do the research, that could be interesting.   :001_smile:

[boscopup]

Except my absolutely un-grammatical mind thinks that this is some sort of mathematical logic statement where mimsy contain the set borogoves but also contain other parts that are not borogoves. (Think of one circle labeled borogoves which is completely inside a larger circle labeled mimsy.) I absolutely don't think adjectives or nouns in the slightest.  :huh:

 

This might be why poor dd#2 completely failed one of those nonsensical readings where they wanted to know what described what where nothing made sense when being evaluated as part of vision therapy. She just threw her hands up and said the whole thing was gibberish.  :crying:

 

I got the borogroves = noun, but I too first thought mimsy might be a noun, probably because of the "all", which obviously can be an adverb, but often is used as an adjective. :D

 

I'm usually good with the nonsensical passages, but this one made me think. :)

 

[Donna A.]

I didn't say anyone was arguing not to study grammar. I'm sorry that I was unclear. The discussion seemed to be, in part, the purpose of studying grammar, with quite a bit of discussion about whether it ought to be studied in order to improve writing. I was putting forth the case for studying it for its own sake.

 

I beg to differ that those who study grammar for a living - chiefly linguists, analytic philosophers, and their sort - aren't ignored by most homeschoolers. But that was something of a rabbit trail, and I'm happy to withdraw the comment.

 

First graders do indeed study germ theory, astronomy, etc.: in an age-appropriate manner. You start with the solar system, why you wash your hands before eating, etc. Likewise, I've never had any problems beginning grammar at a young age. They hear Mommy or Daddy or Big Sister referring to a noun; they ask, What's a noun; they get told: Nouns are the thing-words that you can count; we add -s to the words to show there's more than one.

 

And with this (your last paragraph), you made Ruth Beechick's argument, which is that we already study grammar *informally* in context of good reading, speaking, and writing, whether in real life or in "school".  There's never been any argument about that. ;) 

 

Now I would agree that those who read and hear more twaddle and slang than eloquence may have a problem.  THEY may need to study proper grammar (formally) for a longer period of time in order to be able to communicate well after bad habits have already been established.  The pattern for poor grammar or good begins a very young age.... birth even.  Let's face it, what kind of communication skills is a toddler going to learn from SpongeBob?  :huh:

[Violet Crown]

I don't know about elementary school, but there were some junior high and high school English curricula in the late 50s and 60s that were based on structural linguistics. If you search Google or JSTOR, you can find quite a few references.

 

Now, The New English: Linguistics Coming to Junior Highs (Toledo Blade, June 28, 1966)

 

The experiment seems to have been more or less abandoned by the 1970s. If it's anything like the "New Math," my guess is that it was poorly taught.

 

It doesn't look as if anyone has written a history of this era. If someone has time to do the research, that could be interesting. :001_smile:

Whoa! I am so going to look into this. We actually have an old New Math book, from when they were trying to teach set theory to first-graders, with awesome Yellow Submarine-style pictures.

 

I volunteer you to write the educational history of the Seventies.

[Muttichen]

It's funny -- one of the few English grammar exercises that I did with my kids was having them name the parts of speech of all the nonsense words in "Jabberwocky" when they memorized it in elementary school.

 

Just to clarify, I don't believe kids learn to write well just by reading and listening.  They learn to write well by writing a lot, and by having that writing corrected and then revising it.  My kids also did three foreign languages from day one, so they were learning the language of grammar that way. 

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

A fundamental difference is that linguists understand grammar to be the rules governing language as actually spoken by native speakers, whereas traditional grammar understands it as a set of rules that ought to govern written and spoken language, without regard to the extent to which those rules are observed by native speakers.

 

Traditional grammar emphasizes categorization of words into a limited number of "parts of speech," primarily by examining the meaning of the word and determining if that meaning causes it to fall into one category or another. Linguists look instead at the grammatical properties, not the meaning of words and phrases.

 

An argument for this approach is that this is, in fact, how native speakers identify words and phrases. When Lewis Carroll tells us "all mimsy were the borogoves," we know mimsy to be an adjective and borogove to be a noun, without knowing whether the latter is a person, place, or thing, or whether mimsy describes it. We do this by intuitively understanding how the placement of the words in the phrase works, and by recognizing the -y and -s endings of the words. A modern grammatical approach thus takes advantage of the grammatical knowledge already present in a native speaker's mind, rather than requiring memorization of rules and comprehension of abstract categories.

 

Dh would recommend reading one of the introductions to grammar for the nonspecialist available, and teaching from that. Unfortunately nothing as far as I know has ever been written for the pre-college level.

 

 

Unfortunately, he's all busy writing a book on conditionals, which I understand even less than I understand anaphora.

 

Progress on the dissertation was hugely accelerated by the sudden discovery that Great Girl was on the way and likely to be expensive. Don't know if I'm willing to go to those lengths again! :D

I'm wondering if KISS is akin to this? When, after working through KISS last year with my son, we have Winston Grammar a quick try with its definition cards and it was...awful.I'm not exactly clear on what grammar approached in the manner you're describing but I do know WG is pretty traditional and it felt upside-down and backwards from KISS.

[Violet Crown]

I'm wondering if KISS is akin to this? When, after working through KISS last year with my son, we have Winston Grammar a quick try with its definition cards and it was...awful.I'm not exactly clear on what grammar approached in the manner you're describing but I do know WG is pretty traditional and it felt upside-down and backwards from KISS.

Interesting. I'll have to have a look at it.

[Violet Crown]

ElizaGrace,

 

Thanks to your tip, I tracked down one of the structural grammar texts they tried out in high schools, this one in 1959 (article here: http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_196202_link.pdf ), and dh is going to swing by the university library to check out the the copy there. I'll report back!

[Emerald Stoker]

Dh wrote a 1000-page dissertation on pronouns.* His take on grammar is that you study it for the same reason you study math, or astronomy, or poetry, or anatomy. It's part of our world, and you study it so as to understand how it works; not so that you can do something else with it.

 

This is why it annoys him that the mass of homeschoolers stick tenaciously to the traditional understandings of grammar that linguists rejected a century ago. To him, it's as if they refused to learn calculus, or heliocentrism, or literary theory, or germ theory, on the conviction that the old way must be better. If grammar is the set of rules governing our language - and it is - why ignore the people who've devoted their lives to understanding those rules?

 

(I tell him that as soon as the linguists publish an open-and-go curriculum, he may see a different response.)

 

*Sort of. They call them anaphora these days.

 

I completely agree!  We like math books by mathematicians around here, and language books by linguists.

 

We have found these useful so far:  David Crystal's Discover Grammar, Linda Thomas's Beginning Syntax, and the Routledge Language Workbooks (we've used Phonetics and Morphology so far, and have Language Change on deck; there are many other titles in the series as well).

[OneStepAtATime]

No research, but from personal experience formal grammar is not necessarily a prerequisite for good writing (or high SAT scores). I personally believe that quality and quantity of reading play a bigger role.

 

I was a voracious reader, including reading lots of classical literature as well as high quality modern literature and academic non fiction. I never studied formal English grammar beyond the most basic rudiments (i.e. learning the parts of speech). I was a strong writer in high school and college, and had perfect scores on the verbal sections of the SAT, ACT, and GRE.

 

Every student is different, so I can't guarantee this would be the best approach for everyone, but I suspect that a child who reads widely and deeply but does little formal grammar will likely turn out to be a better writer than one who studies years of grammar but reads less.

No research here either, but I agree, with a caveat.  I think it also depends on the child and the circumstances, too.  I read ALL THE TIME as a child.  My mom had to force me to put down books.  I couldn't diagram a sentence to save my life, but I got great scores on my SATS and have always been comfortable writing and have won awards for some of my pieces.  I have always loved writing.

 

Did I memorize grammar rules?  Nope. I know I did not do well trying to rote memorize anything.  Rote memorization was a nightmare for me.  I needed to see the big picture.  Reading and debate etc. gave me far more in the way of writing abilities than rote memorization ever did.

 

However, my kids are both dyslexic.  They have not had the exposure to literature that I have, even though I read to them and we are working on remediation.  It just isn't the same thing.  Neither can rote memorize.  It doesn't work for them either.  But there are many ways to teach grammar and writing.  It doesn't have to be rote memorization or just reading a lot.   My daughter REQUESTED additional grammar instruction just a couple of weeks ago because she knows that her writing is hard to understand and she needs a better grasp of grammar.  However, she is now 13 and much more mature emotionally and developmentally and far more motivated to learn grammar for her own benefit.  We have started using Easy Grammar and she is really happy with it so far.   We aren't rote memorizing, but she is learning grammar in a more structured way, she is incredibly motivated, she is grasping concepts much better than she did when she was younger and it does seem to help.  She struggled with the subject in school and when we pulled her out to homeschool, I dropped grammar altogether for nearly a year.  She needed time.  If I had pressed her to learn through rote memorization or more structured instruction when she was younger, I suspect she would not be nearly as motivated now.

 

In other words, I don't think there is a one size fits all approach that will work for every person.  I think it depends on the child and the circumstances...

[WishboneDawn]

Interesting. I'll have to have a look at it.

Apologies for the post you responded to. I've got to stop posting in threads about grammar from my phone. I forget to proof and there are times the posts make little sense after autocorrect is done with them.:(

[Violet Crown]

Apologies for the post you responded to. I've got to stop posting in threads about grammar from my phone. I forget to proof and there are times the posts make little sense after autocorrect is done with them.:(

It made perfect sense to me. :)

[Amy M]

I didn't say anyone was arguing not to study grammar. I'm sorry that I was unclear. The discussion seemed to be, in part, the purpose of studying grammar, with quite a bit of discussion about whether it ought to be studied in order to improve writing. I was putting forth the case for studying it for its own sake.

 

I beg to differ that those who study grammar for a living - chiefly linguists, analytic philosophers, and their sort - aren't ignored by most homeschoolers. But that was something of a rabbit trail, and I'm happy to withdraw the comment.

 

First graders do indeed study germ theory, astronomy, etc.: in an age-appropriate manner. You start with the solar system, why you wash your hands before eating, etc. Likewise, I've never had any problems beginning grammar at a young age. They hear Mommy or Daddy or Big Sister referring to a noun; they ask, What's a noun; they get told: Nouns are the thing-words that you can count; we add -s to the words to show there's more than one.

 

Oops! I completely misunderstood you. My mistake, so sorry. Guess I got a little jumpy about people thinking we were talking about not studying grammar.

 

Your comments are so intriguing. I'm so glad you wrote some of your thoughts down. Please do let us know what you think of KISS and the copy your husband picked up.

 

Now back to the comment you withdrew. ;) I'm guessing that most specialists in their fields get ignored to some extent by educators/homeschoolers. What would it look like for homeschoolers not to ignore linguists, etc.? What would we be doing differently or paying attention to or skipping? I don't even know if I'm in the ballpark with the phrasing of my question!

 

ETA: I tried to post this last night, but had major internet troubles. :/

 

[Hunter]

A LITTLE grammar instruction helps a LOT. But after that, a LOT of grammar instruction only helps a LITTLE more.

 

There are families that HOMEschool. They do what needs to be done for school, and then go on with their lives. Then there are the families that homeSCHOOL, and put more emphasis on education and advanced topics than HOMEschoolers usually do.

 

If you don't take this chart too seriously and pick it apart, thinking about the different worldviews described, can be helpful in better understanding where some authors are coming from in their curriculum choices.

http://www.heartofwisdom.com/homeschoollinks/greek-vs-hebrew-education/

 

I tend to go grammar light with most of my students, but continue to study grammar for my own self-education. After the basics are covered, I don't get enough bang for my buck, with students that are not planning on making a career or hobby of their writing. There are only so many hours in the day. To focus on grammar, means skipping something else, that is more likely to be used by them.

[justamouse]

I don't think good ol' John Warriner has been mentioned.   We started with him after the last FLL.  It worked for me in the 70's, and I was in a pretty progressive school district with many a former hippie teacher (I took mediation for credit).  The original Warriner books can still be found used on Amazon/eBay.

 

I have all of them. :D I keep them for backup. 

[Violet Crown]

Now back to the comment you withdrew. ;) I'm guessing that most specialists in their fields get ignored to some extent by educators/homeschoolers. What would it look like for homeschoolers not to ignore linguists, etc.? What would we be doing differently or paying attention to or skipping? I don't even know if I'm in the ballpark with the phrasing of my question!

 

 

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Dh and I thought this was a good question, that wasn't as easy to answer as it seemed. Some scattered thoughts:

 

Think of grammar as being like the rules of any other field of study. The rules aren't determined by what authority or era one likes best, but rather discovered, and to a certain point not subject to argument, even if in some cases linguists differ about what rules best account for some particular case.

 

One of the differences from traditional grammar I mentioned in an earlier post was the abandonment of categorizing words into a small number of parts of speech according to their meaning. Dh adds that a fundamental error of homeschool grammar texts is this very emphasis on the individual word, where a sentence is understood by first examining the individual words. Instead, the sentence should be understood as the basic unit of language, and analyzed in its constituent parts and their relation to each other.

 

As a practical matter, students should be doing less memorizing of rules and concelts and lists of words that make up the categories of various parts of speech, and more analyzing their intuitions about language. To advert to a different thread, if you know how (say) a typical adjective behaves in different kinds of sentences and phrases, you can decide if a word is behaving like an adjective by seeing to what extent it behaves like one, rather than memorizing the definition of an adjective, examining the meaning of the word, and then making a judgment as to whether the word meets the definition. Because a child doesn't already know the abstract concept of "describes or limits a person, place, thing or idea"; but he already knows that you can generally put -ly on the end of the words that go in front of nouns, and then put the word after the verb ("the green light shines greenly"). Because he already does this. Learning linguistic rules is not memorization of abstract concepts, but paying attention to the complex things the child already knows how to do with the language.

 

ETA: It's very late and I hope the above wasn't just unclear babbling.