Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system?

[erobz]

Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system? At 40 years old I barely have any notion about what nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, adverbs, subjects, predicates, past participles, gerund phrase, etc... are. I know they have some "definition" that my children bring home as study material. I remember these words from the subject, but I never once have formulated a sentence by actively thinking of grammatical definitions and/or whether or not I have applied them correctly. I just have an idea of what "sounds acceptable" by shear repetitive contact with language. Oh, and sometimes I get things wrong... but I cannot recall anyone having no idea of what I'm trying to say purely due to "poor" grammar.

That being said... I'm guilty of trying to correct my children's sentence formulation too, but that will only ever occur until I feel that they have achieved a basic level of competency with speech writing patterns. Furthermore, that will never be done via applying a pure grammatical definition. It's always a "Well...we say it like this, or we say it like that", just pattern reinforcement.

Even in college, (at least for me - engineers were forced to take several English courses). The first half grammar, then you go to writing papers later in the course. I never once tapped into a formulaic approach where definitions from grammar are the driving force in what I wrote in the papers.

Anyhow, what do you think about it? How many of you are actually thinking about the theoretical constructs of the English language that we learn in grade school as you would a mathematical definition (or something to that effect where structural definitions seem to be of great importance)? Maybe the brainwashing just that effective that I just do it without any concept of it?

 

[berkeman]

What happens when you make grammatical errors while programming? The compiler throws errors and your program doesn't run. Have you ever studied any programming language? Did you think the grammatical rules for each programming language were dumb?

Grammar in written language is sort of the same -- if you use incorrect grammar, it causes your readers to stumble over what you have written, and slows them down in trying to understand you. In the worst case, if they misinterpret what you are trying to say, it may lead to incorrect actions on your reader's part.

 

[berkeman]

https://thelanguagenerds.com/2019/grammar-memes/#google_vignette

 

[erobz]

Have you ever studied any programming language?

A smidge. Setting up a for loop is different in every language. I'll give you that you do have to learn the order of the wording around setting up that structure, but that is specific to each programming language. My point more or less is that once a for loop is understood, that is sufficient competency, and time need not be wasted on all the syntax of different program languages unless one decides to specialize.

I'm sure I was careless with grammar in that paragraph, but will the reader be completely in the dark about what I'm trying to convey because of that carelessness specifically?

Grammar in written language is sort of the same -- if you use incorrect grammar, it causes your readers to stumble over what you have written, and slows them down in trying to understand you. In the worst case, if they misinterpret what you are trying to say, it may lead to incorrect actions on your reader's part.

What I'm saying is that I only have basic competency, and I don't believe I've been misinterpreted due to poor grammar. Spelling... sure, but not grammar. Bad grammar slowing the reader down, I'll give you that too. But I'm not talking about punctuation as much - it mimics speech patterns in writing - and I think that is more important. I'm talking about the sentence structure.

 

[fresh_42]

If I look at advertisements, and even some news channels these days, I'd rather say that more grammar should be taught, not less.

 

[erobz]

If I look at advertisements, and even some news channels these days, I'd rather say that more grammar should be taught, not less.

But is that grammar that should be taught more or punctuation (since it mimics speech pattern in writing). Do you honestly dissect grammatically ( sentence structure) what you write as you would a mathematical definition. Does Anyone actually do that while speaking or writing?

 

[fresh_42]

But is that grammar that should be taught more or punctuation (since it mimics speech pattern in writing). Do you honestly dissect grammatically ( sentence structure) what you write as you would a mathematical definition. Does Anyone actually do that while speaking or writing?

They don't, which is why it is often unbearable to listen to them. Grammar is more than sentence structure.

 

[erobz]

They don't, which is why it is often unbearable to listen to them. Grammar is more than sentence structure.

Do you find me unbearable, because I do none of that other than trying to include punctuation? A person is either smart enough to be trained via pattern recognition on how to formulate a sentence or they aren't. All the grammar in the world isn't going to change that.

 

[berkeman]

I guess I should also add this question to your thread: "Have you ever studied a foreign language?" When I studied Spanish way back in high school, we learned it from a grammatical perspective. We learned to conjugate Spanish verbs, we learned the parts of speech in Spanish, and the (different) ordering of those parts of speech in Spanish versus English sentences. Learning the grammar was fundamental to learning the language, IMO.

 

[fresh_42]

Do you find me unbearable, because I do none of that other than trying to include punctuation? A person is either smart enough to be trained via pattern familiarity on how to formulate a sentence or they aren't. All the grammar in the world isn't going to save them.

I don't judge the use of languages other than my native language.

 

[berkeman]

Do you honestly dissect grammatically ( sentence structure) what you write as you would a mathematical definition. Does Anyone actually do that while speaking or writing?

Yes, part of writing well is reviewing what you have written and fixing it up. I routinely review my posts right after I've written and posted them, looking for any grammatical errors or any sentences that might be confusing. I'd guesstimate that I correct about 30% of my posts on that first pass review.

I also spend a lot of time tuning up PF thread titles, since as-written about 30% of them are confusing or non-descriptive. When I tune up a thread title I send a note to the OP to let them know about the change, so hopefully they see what the issue was.

Do you find me unbearable

Not at all. You are a wonderful contributing member here.

 

[erobz]

I guess I should also add this question to your thread: "Have you ever studied a foreign language?" When I studied Spanish way back in high school, we learned it from a grammatical perspective. We learned to conjugate Spanish verbs, we learned the parts of speech in Spanish, and the (different) ordering of those parts of speech in Spanish versus English sentences. Learning the grammar was fundamental to learning the language, IMO.

I took a Spanish class, but if I'm being honest, I never understood any of grammar to apply it in that way. I think I might be strange in the fact that I consider everything I learned linguistically to be pure pattern recognition. I thought that more or less everyone is doing what I was doing...so far, its 2:1.

 

[erobz]

Yes, part of writing well is reviewing what you have written and fixing it up. I routinely review my posts right after I've written and posted them, looking for any grammatical errors or any sentences that might be confusing. I'd guesstimate that I correct about 30% of my posts on that first pass review.

Yes, I do that too. Usually after I hit reply though! But it isn't anything conscious like it would be with a definition in math or something. "Does that sound right" is the extent of my structural analysis.

 

[symbolipoint]

Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system? At 40 years old I barely have any notion about what nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, adverbs, subjects, predicates, past participles, gerund phrase, etc... are. I know they have some "definition" that my children bring home as study material. I remember these words from the subject, but I never once have formulated a sentence by actively thinking of grammatical definitions and/or whether or not I have applied them correctly. I just have an idea of what "sounds acceptable" by shear repetitive contact with language. Oh, and sometimes I get things wrong... but I cannot recall anyone having no idea of what I'm trying to say purely due to "poor" grammar.

School systems really do not emphasize learning grammar, enough. I took the time to study English Grammar separately a couple of times, several years ago. I use Grammar nearly every single day!

 

[symbolipoint]

@erobz,
Here's something to think about:
*"I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know."

*(very famous saying or comment by Groucho Marx)

 

[symbolipoint]

But is that grammar that should be taught more or punctuation (since it mimics speech pattern in writing). Do you honestly dissect grammatically ( sentence structure) what you write as you would a mathematical definition. Does Anyone actually do that while speaking or writing?

Actually, yes! Or most of time, mostly yes.

 

[Lnewqban]

What is grammar?

 

[symbolipoint]

..., A person is either smart enough to be trained via pattern recognition on how to formulate a sentence or they aren't. All the grammar in the world isn't going to change that.

The contrary is more correct; that it can and often will.

 

[symbolipoint]

I guess I should also add this question to your thread: "Have you ever studied a foreign language?"

THAT just on its own is extremely important!

 

[symbolipoint]

Yes, I do that too. Usually after I hit reply though! But it isn't anything conscious like it would be with a definition in math or something. "Does that sound right" is the extent of my structural analysis.

What? You are trying to say something there, but I do not understand. I did not yet read beyond that post so not know yet if it was made clearer...

(Excuse my Grammar.)

 

[erobz]

What? You are trying to say something there, but I do not understand. I did not yet read beyond that post so not know yet if it was made clearer...

(Excuse my Grammar.)

I was replying to berkman about editing posts. I'm saying I edit too, but it not like what adjective, noun, etc... "is appropriate to use here in this sentence". To this very moment I couldn't define (or give an example) of what a verb is without a dictionary (or the web). Yet, you have to admit you are able to converse with me (I hope)! I'm apparently finding out this is strange...at least in a website tuned for academics.

 

[symbolipoint]

I was replying to berkman about editing posts. I'm saying I edit too, but it not like what adjective, noun, etc... "is appropriate to use here in this sentence". To this very moment I couldn't define (or give an example) of what a verb is without a dictionary (or the web). Yet, you have to admit you are able to converse with me (I hope)! I'm apparently finding out this is strange...at least in a website tuned for academics.

One nice thing about PF is, that we can create and produce discussions on such academic topics such as English Grammer. Additionally in my saying that, I am not absolutely certain if that sentence structure is entirely grammatically correct. I might go back over it and edit, to remove the comma from that compound sentence.

 

[erobz]

Maybe thread should have been in Arts, Music ,Linguistics section. But my probing is for a general survey of opinion about how much you actually use it, and how I can seemingly get away without applied theoretical knowledge of grammar. When, I have to ask my 9 year old what an adverb is before I look over the homework, I don't find use in learning it. Thats my opinion.

 

[symbolipoint]

thread should have been in Arts, Music ,Linguistics section.

That is a good idea!

 

[Hornbein]

I don't recall having studied grammar in school, 1961 through 1979. Though my first grade teacher did teach us linguistics, usually a graduate school level thing. I've never forgotten the diphthong blend, though I don't recall what it is.

 

[erobz]

I don't recall having studied grammar in school, 1961 through 1979. Though my first grade teacher did teach us linguistics, usually a graduate school level thing. I've never forgotten the diphthong blend, though I don't recall what it is.

I think in the US, elementary school was also referred to as "grammar school" (I remember grandparents saying it when I was there 1989 - 1995).

 

[erobz]

That is a good idea!

By all means. Any mentor willing to transfer the thread, I goofed not looking through the headings in this section carefully.

 

[Lnewqban]

But my probing is for a general survey of opinion about how much you actually use it, and how I can seemingly get away without applied theoretical knowledge of grammar.

Before they receive any formal grammar education, young children, as well as people around the world who were never able to attend any school, "get away without applied theoretical knowledge of grammar".

Immigrants like me, who are in need of learning a new language while endlessly working to survive and to support their families abroad, don't enjoy the time or energy to properly learn the ins and outs of the new-to-them grammar in a formal way (at least during their first years living in a new cultural environment).

Perhaps in an imperfect way, but basic grammar can be learned in those cases basically by observation and imitation of others, it seems.

 

[Borek]

I am to some extent with OP here - I know (almost) no grammar and it doesn't stop me from being efficient in communication (and I am not writing about English, but about Polish ) to the point of being nominated to a serious cultural award for one of the things I wrote.

Plus, natural language grammar is never an exact science, there are always tons of cases where rules overlap and their use boils down to style or personal preferences. And then comes this guy from the other part of the country and he speaks funny, because that's the way they speak, and language professors start to fight over whether this is a proper language, or not.

Yes, we should study the language and yes, we should train in its use, but I am not convinced knowing formal grammar beyond some basics is necessary for that.

 

[PeroK]

Anyhow, what do you think about it? How many of you are actually thinking about the theoretical constructs of the English language that we learn in grade school as you would a mathematical definition (or something to that effect where structural definitions seem to be of great importance)? Maybe the brainwashing just that effective that I just do it without any concept of it?

The question is whether children only need to be able to use their language or understand how it is constructed. I thought grammar was no longer taught in schools. When I was working, younger employees had little or no idea of the underlying structure. For example, understanding that myself is a reflexive pronoun. I'm surprised that it's back on the curriculum.

Some people enjoy understanding how things work, rather than simply using them. Some people are happy to use a computer and others want to learn how they work. It's the same wth language.

I'm not sure how useful it is to know grammar well. It makes it easier to learn a foreign language for sure. Otherwise, you are confined to learning largely by rote. A friend of mine took up a job teaching English as a foreign language and he had to learn why things were the way they are. It wasn't easy to teach English to adults without a clear idea of what was going on.

 

[symbolipoint]

Perhaps in an imperfect way, but basic grammar can be learned in those cases basically by observation and imitation of others, it seems.

YES! THAT.

 

[symbolipoint]

Yes, we should study the language and yes, we should train in its use, but I am not convinced knowing formal grammar beyond some basics is necessary for that.

Much or most of the "Basic Grammar" is formally taught (especially or including learning or studying a language as a modern foreign language). At least that has been my experience as a learner.

 

[jackjack2025]

I don't remember a lot of grammar being taught when I was a child. I only became aware of things when I studied Latin. Then I had to learn declensions, nominative, accusative, dative, ablative etc. It was essential to learn them, because the words were spelled differently depending on the case.

In English you can get by without knowing a lot of this as the OP mentioned.

So I agree with the OP that it isn't necessary to learn or think about grammar in any serious way when formulating sentences in English. It is important to communicate clearly. I don't regret that we weren't taught a lot of grammar in school. I regret that we wasted time learning other languages. In the modern world it suffices to know one language very well. I regret that in school we wasted endless hours studying irrelevant/hobby subjects instead of being taught to read in a 'better' way, have better comprehension and memory. I wish more time had been spent on that.

 

[symbolipoint]

So I agree with the OP that it isn't necessary to learn or think about grammar in any serious way when formulating sentences in English. It is important to communicate clearly. I don't regret that we weren't taught a lot of grammar in school. I regret that we wasted time learning other languages. In the modern world it suffices to know one language very well. I regret that in school we wasted endless hours studying irrelevant/hobby subjects instead of being taught to read in a 'better' way, have better comprehension and memory. I wish more time had been spent on that.

That is sad.

Also very sad is that these days, some people have started to use smartphones with a language translation app to communicate between people of different human languages. For SPEAKING!

 

[jackjack2025]

That is sad.

Also very sad is that these days, some people have started to use smartphones with a language translation app to communicate between people of different human languages. For SPEAKING!

I think it is sad that probably most of the education between ages 6-18 is a waste of time.

Yes people can use language translation apps now which are very good, so you only need to be educated in one language. The other languages, it still might be nice to learn, a nice hobby, good for the brain to learn a new language, nice to speak to people in their own language. However, not necessary now. I think it should be viewed as a hobby and a 'nice-to-have', but not something taught in schools, when there are so many more important things that aren't taught in schools.

 

[pinball1970]

Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system? At 40 years old I barely have any notion about what nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, adverbs, subjects, predicates, past participles, gerund phrase, etc...

Like every other discipline, learn the rules, study and practice then execution is more efficient and effective.
You can get by in life without doing this, but you can tell the difference between the people who have taken time to do this, and those that did not not take much interest in school, they still speak like they did when they were 16.
I am British and we are sadly lacking in this skill as a nation. I was put to shame by 18 year old German, French, Austrian, Italian and Portuguese students who came to our labs with English as second language. They learned techniques and gained a lot of knowledge whilst improving their English skills.

@berkeman Pointed out that learning a second language involves an understanding of grammar, not just the new vocabulary and verbs, but also the terminology and structure. How it all works!

 

[jackjack2025]

Like every other discipline, learn the rules, study and practice then execution is more efficient and effective.
You can get by in life without doing this, but you can tell the difference between the people who have taken time to do this, and those that did not not take much interest in school, they still speak like they did when they were 16.
I am British and we are sadly lacking in this skill as a nation. I was put to shame by 18 year old German, French, Austrian, Italian and Portuguese students who came to our labs with English as second language. They learned techniques and gained a lot of knowledge whilst improving their English skills.

@berkeman Pointed out that learning a second language involves an understanding of grammar, not just the new vocabulary and verbs, but also the terminology and structure. How it all works!

Alike to most other disciplines; learn the rules. Study and practice, followed by the execution of this practice, is in my opinion more efficient and effective. You can get by in life without doing this, but you can tell the difference between the people who have taken the time to do this, and those that did not not not not not take much interest in school. They still speak like they did when they were 16 (aside: horrible wording). I am British and we are sadly lacking in this skill as a nation. I was put to shame by 18 year old German, French, Austrian, Italian and Portuguese students who came to our labs with English as a second language. They learned techniques and gained a lot of knowledge whilst improving their English skills.

It is easy to be critical.

 

[jackjack2025]

Some things I think would be better to teach in schools:

Reading faster.
Reading with high comprehension.
Improvements to memory for reading.

First aid and CPR (might save a life, learning about stalactites and stalagmites is not nearly as important).
Posture.
Health.
Diet.
Laws.

I think we have more important issues than worrying about the grammar police.

 

[pinball1970]

Alike to most other disciplines; learn the rules. Study and practice, followed by the execution of this practice, is in my opinion more efficient and effective. You can get by in life without doing this, but you can tell the difference between the people who have taken the time to do this, and those that did not not not not not take much interest in school. They still speak like they did when they were 16 (aside: horrible wording). I am British and we are sadly lacking in this skill as a nation. I was put to shame by 18 year old German, French, Austrian, Italian and Portuguese students who came to our labs with English as a second language. They learned techniques and gained a lot of knowledge whilst improving their English skills.

It is easy to be critical.

I was pointing out why it matters, why it is useful and what my experience on the matter is.
I also said the British are lacking, AND that I was put to shame.

No one was being critical, i'm always missing stuff out, so you can cut the snark out.

 

[jackjack2025]

I was pointing out why it matters, why it is useful and what my experience on the matter is.
I also said the British are lacking, AND that I was put to shame.

No one was being critical, i'm always missing stuff out, so you can cut the snark out.

Sorry.

I was trying to make the point that almost all posts, including mine, can be critiqued. They will contain grammatical mistakes. But as the OP was pointing out, it doesn't really matter. The message is there. There are many more important things that we should be teaching, but we are not. I have listed some.

 

[pinball1970]

Sorry

Seems to be the hardest word...

To use it like that shows a lot of class.

 

[erobz]

I don't want some people to think I'm attacking what they like. I'm saying from a practical point of view, as personal experience, I must have short termed stored these structural definitions just to understand what grades were given on how well I could analyze the structure of a sentence...if made to do so. I've never used any of it in practice actually constructing a sentence other than some punctuation rules.

For me practically "there is a subject and the rest of the words that describe the subject in a complete sentence". Having courses or parts of courses taught throughout the entirety of the 13 year base education is a waste of time there. Save it for avenues of special interest in college.

 

[Mark44]

Do you honestly dissect grammatically ( sentence structure) what you write as you would a mathematical definition. Does Anyone actually do that while speaking or writing?

Yes, I do. For half of my working life I taught mathematics and a variety of programming languages in a community college (two-year college). In the other half I worked as a writer for a large software company. In that job I created explanatory text and computer code that needed to be grammatically correct.

I feel fortunate that my early education (about 7th or 8th grade) included a lot of time spent at diagramming sentences, which reinforced notions about nouns and verbs, pronouns, adjectives and adverbs, and the other parts of English speech.

Grammar is more than sentence structure.

Certainly, but sentence structure is a large part of grammar. I'm sure that you, as a native speaker of German, are well aware of the different forms that nouns take depending on where they appear in a sentence -- i.e., as subjects, direct or indirect objects, possessives, and so on.

"Have you ever studied a foreign language?" When I studied Spanish way back in high school, we learned it from a grammatical perspective. We learned to conjugate Spanish verbs, we learned the parts of speech in Spanish, and the (different) ordering of those parts of speech in Spanish versus English sentences. Learning the grammar was fundamental to learning the language, IMO.

I studied Spanish for a year in 9th grade. In one way Spanish is similar to English in that only pronouns are inflected while nouns aren't. By that, I mean that nouns don't change their form depending on where they appear in a sentence. For example, the first person pronouns in Spanish yo, mi, and me correspond to English I, my, and me. In English we would normally not say "Me went to the store" which is why it is grammatically incorrect to say "Bill and me went to the store." The situation is analogous in Spanish and many other languages.

In high school I studied Russian for two years, with another couple of years in college. In contrast to English, each noun and each adjective can take up to 12 different forms (6 each for singular and plural). There are different forms for nouns that are the subject of a sentence, for the direct object of a transitive verb, for the indirect object, to show possession, and other attributes. English of many centuries ago (either Old English or Middle English, I don't remember) used to have inflected nouns, but these were discarded by the time of Shakespeare. The only vestiges of inflection remaining are in pronouns, of which many native speakers of English are able to use correctly (e.g., "Send a copy to Mary and I.")

*"I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know."

Another example is the difference between "Let's eat grandma!" and "Let's eat, grandma!"

I am to some extent with OP here - I know (almost) no grammar and it doesn't stop me from being efficient in communication (and I am not writing about English, but about Polish

Being that Polish is a Slavic language, I'm willing to bet that you know when to use ja, mnie, or mi in a sentence.

 

[Mark44]

For me practically "there is a subject and the rest of the words that describe the subject in a complete sentence".

"Bill recommended this interesting book that I'm reading."
Clearly "Bill" is the subject, but are all the other words in this sentence somehow describing Bill? Your categorization seems to be missing quite a bit.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just yesterday at my job, I got a block of copy to post on the landing page of our college website, visible to tens of thousands of students:

Get you're graduation swag today!

:shudder:

I has proper grammar drilled into me by my Grade 11 English teacher, who felt proper use of English was more important to a successful professional than any study of "The Great Gatsby" or "The Stone Angel". I will be forever grateful, Mrs. Sutherland.

 

[PeroK]

You don't need to know grammar to speak your native language fluenty and almost perfectly. Likewise, you don't have to know any anatomy to function as a human being. But, if you want to learn another language (especially as an adult) or teach others to speak your language, then it helps to understand how it is constructed - rather than simply to rely on knowing what sounds right and what doesn't. And, it's going to be difficult if you do not even have words for the different parts of speech or for elements of sentence construction.

I've no strong opinion about how much grammar should be taught as part of the core school curriculum. In the past, probably too much formal grammar was taught. When I was at school, perhaps there was a happy medium. And, in more recent times, perhaps too little has been taught. That said, there is so much that could and should go into the core curriculum that I'm not sure that grammar should occupy a central role.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you honestly dissect grammatically ( sentence structure) what you write as you would a mathematical definition. Does Anyone actually do that while speaking or writing?

It depends on how complex one's discussions are.

Like all things, a basic amount of knowledge in a given subject will get one through a basic life. But they will be limited to that basic level.

That's fine when the subject is fixing a car or measuring a plot of land (things we don't all do, and don't all need expertise in), but we all use the language all the time. A basic understanding of the language keeps one at a basic level of communication acumen.

 

[PeroK]

Just yesterday at my job, I got a block of copy to post on the landing page of our college website, visible to tens of thousands of students:

Get you're graduation swag today!

:shudder:

I has proper grammar drilled into me by my Grade 11 English teacher, who felt proper use of English was more important to a successful professional than any study of "The Great Gatsby" or "The Stone Angel". I will be forever grateful, Mrs. Sutherland.

It's a good example, but it's more about incorrect usage than grammar, per se.

PS actually, it is bad grammar!

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

 

[erobz]

I has proper grammar drilled into me...

I hope you can laugh with me about this?

 

[erobz]

"Bill recommended this interesting book that I'm reading."
Clearly "Bill" is the subject, but are all the other words in this sentence somehow describing Bill? Your categorization seems to be missing quite a bit.

How about instead a main idea, "Bill recommending a book" and the words that describe the main idea in a way the writer would like to be received by the reader "that someone is reading it, and they find it interesting".