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

[Mark44]

How about instead a main idea, "Bill recommending a book"

That's just a brief summary but not the structural components of the sentence, which is in part what grammar is about.

When I was at school, perhaps there was a happy medium. And, in more recent times, perhaps too little has been taught.

I agree. Regarding the "perhaps too little" comment, a former girlfriend of mine, who had a PhD in Biology seemed to believe that "Mary and I" was correct no matter whether it was the subject of the sentence or the direct or indirect object.

 

[Klystron]

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?

Good questions.
Absent the pejorative term brainwashing, substituting education, your last question answers itself: You successfully assimilate and naturally employ rule based structure including word position, grammar, spelling and vocabulary required for written and, one assumes, spoken communication.

Using present tense acknowledges a vital pedagogical precept: We never stop learning language. Communication requires regular updates, adherence to shifting cultural conventions, adjustments to your audience, context, and objectives. For instance, the object of this paragraph concerns agreeing with your supposition that grammar school education prepares us for communicating within the adult world. Context includes a moderated international internet forum intended primarily for STEM professionals, teachers and students with published rules.

Your analogy comparing language assimilation with mathematics strikes at the core of communication education. "Mathematics is the language of Science", exists not as a tired homily but expresses the inherent structure of learning and understanding our world. Natural language remains imprecise. Mathematics provides precision, proof, and ability to transcend myriad spoken/written languages while acknowledging a common mathematical education.


Your first question concerning consciously employing grammatical rules often arises when reading and listening to new sources. English language grows and adapts, assimilating new terms, dropping old conventions. For example, I wrote the first sentence of this paragraph without appending 'ly' to 'conscious', recognizing a consistent shift in adverb forms with the 'ly' appendage slowly dropping away depending on word position in a sentence with meaning preserved.

"Drive safely." -> "Drive safe."
"Walk slowly". -> "Walk slow."

 

[jackjack2025]

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.

I think a lot of my communication is not entirely based on the language, so I don't think a lot of the grammar is necessary or even optimal. Truly beautiful writing is not grammatically correct anyway.

I infer a lot from context.

If I stand at a bus stop, and someone speaks to me in a foreign language I know nothing about, the chances are, they are asking something along the lines of: Do you have the time? How long have you been waiting for the bus?

Also there is a body language which communicates more than grammar. I think people should learn more important things.

 

[fresh_42]

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.

It's more important in English than it is in German. English has quite a strict sentence structure, whereas German is relatively free. In German, it is the cases, especially the genitive, sometimes the dative, the declination and conjugation of anglicisms, the indicatives, and more issues that make me angry when I hear them used incorrectly. I didn't know when I answered that this thread is obviously only about American English and the US school system. The title didn't say so, and the German grammar is more complicated than the English.

However, even English grammar includes more than sentence structure and punctuation although the Oxford comma is annoying, e.g., the rule of time forms used in if clauses, or what I like: people's. Why is it the singular form when people are obviously more than one person? The subtle choice of words also seems to be an issue. The grammar checker I use here more than often corrects a which to a that. I see many differences between these two Germanic languages.

I do not mind if people make mistakes when using a foreign language. I only criticise native speakers using their native language incorrectly. Btw., the grammar checker also often marks phrases I copied from news articles in English!

 

[PeroK]

It's more important in English than it is in German. English has quite a strict sentence structure, whereas German is relatively free.

It's quite the opposite!

 

[Mark44]

In German, it is the cases, especially the genitive, sometimes the dative, the declination and conjugation of anglicisms, the indicatives, and more issues that make me angry when I hear them used incorrectly.

In English, with the exception of adding 's to nouns to indicate possession, only the pronouns still have cases. This is in contrast to German or other Germanic languages and Slavic languages. I often see people in movies misuse pronouns, even when the character is portraying an educated person of culture.

 

[Mark44]

It's quite the opposite!

I'm inclined to agree at least to some degree. In English we can move words of the sentence around without changing the underlying meaning.
"Joe gave me the ball."
"Joe gave the ball to me."
"The ball was given by Joe to me."
"The ball was given to me by Joe."

 

[fresh_42]

I'm inclined to agree at least to some degree. In English we can move words of the sentence around without changing the underlying meaning.
"Joe gave me the ball."
"Joe gave the ball to me."
"The ball was given by Joe to me."
"The ball was given to me by Joe."

But that is still SPO in different versions, such as passive. German allows:

Joe gab mir den Ball.
Den Ball gab mir Joe.
Mir gab Joe den Ball.

Objects can begin the sentence, and predicates can end it. These are significant differences. Me gave Joe the ball is definitely wrong. These sentences have a slightly different meaning. The emphasis is always on the last word. All sentences are correct German. English doesn't allow changing the order.

...mastery of the art and spirit of the Germanic language enables a man to travel all day in one sentence without changing cars.

Mark Twain

 

[jackjack2025]

I'm inclined to agree at least to some degree. In English we can move words of the sentence around without changing the underlying meaning.
"Joe gave me the ball."
"Joe gave the ball to me."
"The ball was given by Joe to me."
"The ball was given to me by Joe."

You might get in trouble with split infinitive police

 

[PeroK]

All sentences are correct German. English doesn't allow changing the order.

That is definitely not true.

There seem to be mixed opinions about it on line. Perhaps it depends what sort of flexibility you,re looking for. For example, when I travelled on trains in Germany, the announcements were blissfully forumulaic.

Meine Damen und Herren, in wenigen Minuten erreichen wir ...

It was always the same.

Whereas, on a British train, you were likely to get some random words, that might or might not make sense. This has changed somewhat with automated announcements.

In general, Germans seem to stick with formulaic sentence structures, whereas native English speakers often produce a unique mixture of words and phrases, that may or may not make much sense.

 

[Mark44]

You might get in trouble with split infinitive police

Not likely, since no infinitives were split in any of my examples.

 

[fresh_42]

That is definitely not true.

There seem to be mixed opinions about it on line. Perhaps it depends what sort of flexibility your looking for. For example, when I travelled on trains in Germany, the announcements were blissfully forumulaic.

Meine Damen und Herren, in wenigen Minuten erreichen wir ...

It was always the same.

Whereas, on a British train, you were likely to get some random words, that might or might not make sense. This has changed somewhat with automated announcements.

In general, Germans seem to stick with formulaic sentence structures, whereas native English speakers often produce a unique mixture of words and phrases, that may or may not make much sense.

I have no idea what you are speaking about. I know it is not about the German language, though. English requires SPO, at leat this was what I had been taught at school, German does not. Simple as that.

I don't see how corporate regulations can contribute to this.

 

[PeroK]

I have no idea what you are speaking about. I know it is not about the German language, though. English requires SPO, at leat this was what I had been taught at school, German does not. Simple as that.

I don't see how corporate regulations can contribute to this.

Ich glaube, dass Du/Sie hast/haben nicht recht.

I was taught that the word order here is wrong. Are you telling me it's correct German? I was taught that the verb must go at the end of a subordinate clause.

 

[PeroK]

You're not right in my opinion.

You're not, in my opinion, right.

You're, in my opinion, not right.

You, in my opinion, are not right.

In my opinion, you are not right.

In my opinion, right you are not.

I could weave "most decidedly" into those examples almost wherever the mood takes me. There is so much flexibility in English.

 

[symbolipoint]

A very very brief mention:

Prescriptive Grammar; Descriptive Grammar

 

[jackjack2025]

You're not right in my opinion.

You're not, in my opinion, right.

In my opinion, you are not right.

In my opinion, right you are not.

I could weave "most decidedly" into those examples almost wherever the mood takes me. There is so much flexibility in English.

Flexibility in language also allows flexibility in interpretation.

You're not right in my opinion.

You're not, in my opinion, right.
[ambiguous, doesn't necessarily mean the same as the sentence above]

In my opinion, you are not right.

In my opinion, right you are not.
[very clumsy language, not really acceptable]

 

[DaveC426913]

I hope you can laugh with me about this?

I KNEW I would make a typo in there somewhere! I KNEW it!

 

[renormalize]

In my opinion, right you are not.
[very clumsy language, not really acceptable]

Yoda begs to differ.

 

[DaveC426913]

"I never said she took my wallet."

Seven words, seven different meanings:

"I never said she took my wallet."

"I never said she took my wallet."

"I never said she took my wallet."

"I never said she took my wallet."

"I never said she took my wallet."

"I never said she took my wallet."

"I never said she took my wallet."

 

[jackjack2025]

Yoda begs to differ.

I KNEW I would make a typo in there somewhere! I KNEW it!

I knowed it too

 

[PeroK]

In my opinion, right you are not.
[very clumsy language, not really acceptable]

I would say it's quite emphatic and perhaps slightly humorous, but correct English. It's better thus:

In my opinion, right you are most decidedly not!

 

[symbolipoint]

Can you use "that" consecutively five times in one sentence?
(hint: It would be for a complex sentence.)

 

[jackjack2025]

I would say it's quite emphatic and perhaps slightly humorous, but correct English. It's better thus:

In my opinion, right you are most decidedly not!

Humorous yes. It is emphatic, but most decidedly not.

In my opinion, you are not right (prefer the word correct here).

 

[jackjack2025]

Can you use "that" consecutively five times in one sentence?
(hint: It would be for a complex sentence.)

Yes, that would be an accomplishment that would establish me as one of those posters that can not only use the word 'that', but can also say 'that' which is not that.

6 ok?

Oh, consecutively... ouch

 

[symbolipoint]

Yes, that would be an accomplishment that would establish me as one of those posters that can not only use the word 'that', but can also say 'that' which is not that.

6 ok?

I guess your try is nice; but I do mean consecutvely, with no other words between the "that".

 

[fresh_42]

Ich glaube, dass Du/Sie hast/haben nicht recht.

I was taught that the word order here is wrong. Are you telling me it's correct German?

Which sentence do you mean? The one above here is incorrect.

I was taught that the verb must go at the end of a subordinate clause.

I was talking about main clauses, for which we do not have something similar to SPO. See my example with Joe's ball. You cannot shuffle the words in English as you may do in German. In this sense, English has more restrictive requirements for its sentence structures. And this is what I referred to, and not using the passive form to exchange the subject and the object.

Subordinate clauses usually end with the verb. I don't know whether this is a requirement. I can imagine not doing it, but I don't know whether this would be merely lyrical freedom. It also depends on whether it is a proper subordinate clause or two main clauses in a row, e.g., connected by an and, in which case the order is free again. Relative clauses are more regulated than main clauses. E.g., they require a comma, other than in English. There are at least some more rules. For example, the auxiliary verb goes at the end in the perfect past tense, not the main verb.

I don't know whether it is a rule in English or only common sense to end phrases more often and begin new ones. You can nest sentences endlessly in German (cp. Twain's quotation). And you can even concatenate words almost infinitely in Hungary.

 

[erobz]

It’s apparent from the conversation all have clearly demonstrated superior mastery of the written word over me. Is it divisible for study, sure, but is this level of pedagogy crucial for communication when context can just be added to convey the point? I say no. What this is good for is posturing. I think we can be better than that.

 

[jackjack2025]

It’s apparent from the conversation all have clearly demonstrated superior mastery of the written word over me. Is it divisible for study, sure, but is this level of pedagogy crucial for communication when context can just be added to convey the point? I say no. What this is good for is posturing. I think we can be better than that.

You are correct.

 

[Borek]

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.

Sure I do, but I have no idea WHY I am using them the way I do and what are the rules behind.

Polish has seven grammatical cases (of which one is rarely used). I have no problems using them all in practice, but I can't recite all of them nor assign noun forms to them. I was rather surprised when I realized that (eons ago), but I couldn't care less.

So yes, grammar is important, knowing formal grammar in and out - not so much.

 

[DaveC426913]

Can you use "that" consecutively five times in one sentence?
(hint: It would be for a complex sentence.)

I can top that. Use "had" eight times consecutively.

In her essay, Alice had had "had", whereas Billy had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

 

[Mark44]

I can top that. Use "had" eight times consecutively.

In her essay, Alice had had "had", whereas Billy had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

But it's not eight times in one sentence, so doesn't satisfy @symbolipoint's challenge.

 

[DaveC426913]

But it's not eight times in one sentence, so doesn't satisfy @symbolipoint's challenge.

Oh. Well, mine didn't specify that. I'm sure it could be rewritten to be one sentence by employing a semi-colon in there somewhere.

 

[symbolipoint]

A modifiable example with many possible options around the main question:

One student said that that that that that other student said was correct.

In contrast to my being crazy, the original question was what a high school English teacher asked during a class meeting.

 

[PeroK]

I was talking about main clauses, for which we do not have something similar to SPO. See my example with Joe's ball. You cannot shuffle the words in English as you may do in German. In this sense, English has more restrictive requirements for its sentence structures.

Let's accept that as one example. I was talking more generally about the freedom to express yourself in each language. My experience of learning German was its complexity and formality. Everything was more complicated than English: articles, plurals, nouns, verbs, adjectives. In a word, I would have described German as regimented. That's how I felt learning it.

I noticed that contemporary German sources would frequently use English words and phrases. I interpreted this as an attempt to break the shackles of the language and breathe some fresh air! It's difficult to imagine rock and roll in German. For example: I can't get no satisfaction, uses the flexibility of English to sound effortlessly rebellious. I know it's a literal translation, but Ich kann keine Befriedigung finden feels very formal by comparison. Okay, you can change the word order to Keine Befriedigung kann ich finden, but that's not the flexibility I'm talking about.

Also, English words themselves have such a range of sources. They don't look like each other. In German, the verbs almost all end in -en, nouns have a common look and feel. German feels homogenous to me. English, to use a Scottish expression, is a real mixture-maxture. In my example, "I can't get no" has a Germanic origin and "satisfaction" is French.

That's how I see things.

 

[fresh_42]

That's how I see things.

I do not want to discuss this endlessly. I did not say that English is more restrictive than German, or that there were fewer variations possible. "Subject-predicate-object" is a strict rule directly associated with the subject I answered to, namely, sentence structure, and that no such rule exists in German. I called that a restriction and you seemingly extrapolated it to English as a whole. That's not what I said or intended to say. You may begin a German sentence with the object, and - to my best knowledge - you can not in English without further tricks like commas, passive forms, or similar. The declination identifies an object in German, not the position. In this sense, and only in this sense, English sentence structures are more restrictive in my opinion.

 

[erobz]

How should I have known this thread about the "low practicality of teaching grammar to kids" would meander to creating garbage sentences involving "that that that that"... that are "grammatically correct" as somehow proof to the contrary?!?

 

[pinball1970]

How should I have known this thread about the "low practicality of teaching grammar to kids" would meander to creating garbage sentences involving "that that that that"... that are "grammatically correct" as somehow proof to the contrary?!?

This is a superlative physics and maths forum, there is back and forth on all the big stuff, interpretation of QM, Dark Matter/MOND debate, Muon G2, launches (Mfb) plus a tonne of other stuff I have been following for years.
All technical, cordial and professional, all great to read as a layman.
Other sciences, same story.
We make mistakes when posting, it's fine, other posters correct other posters it's fine. Totally fine. Fine...

However, if a poster criticises the way i write? My mother tongue?
My grammar?
My English?

I want to invade Leicester and re establish Rutland as a county by military force. I will be in the van, shouting northern vernacular as we enter the region, splitting infinitives, using double superlatives and incorrect verb conjugation before taking the church and strategic local hall (recently refurbished by the volunteer women's society doing excellent voluntary work in that area)

Language brings out the beast in us.

 

[BVirtual]

I continue to learn grammar. It is a life long pursuit. Why? To get to the next level, copywriting.

Also, so I can put in commas, to represent a pause, to let the reader know there is 'time' to think about what was just read, as something different is coming next. I've been told I put in excessive commas. But I type as I speak, where the comma is spoken with a pause, is more meaningful to me.

However, my copywriter has told me to remove half the commas I use. Why?

Beyond typos and grammar comes the skill of copywriting. The art of slight edits that increase the continuity experience. I really like my copywriter. They change my paragraphs so a reader will start at Word One, and end up at the Last Word, without pause, without thinking "What did the writer mean by that?" The term continuity is a technical term for the copywriter.

The copywritten piece with enhanced continuity reads faster, meaning more value to the reader.

Thus, I actively learn to copywrite, by editing my posts. I reread them and correct typos within seconds of pressing the Submit Button. During this first reread I can correct the few grammar mistakes as well.

On second rereading/editing awkwardness is corrected. I find I should cut and paste the 'actual' answer to the Original Post from the middle of my reply to the very top, as the first sentence, for more value to the reader.

But eventually one has to recognize that 95% done and published is going to get one further in life, than spending another 100% of the original writing and editing time to get from 95% to 98%.

 

[erobz]

This is a superlative physics and maths forum, there is back and forth on all the big stuff, interpretation of QM, Dark Matter/MOND debate, Muon G2, launches (Mfb) plus a tonne of other stuff I have been following for years.
All technical, cordial and professional, all great to read as a layman.
Other sciences, same story.
We make mistakes when posting, it's fine, other posters correct other posters it's fine. Totally fine. Fine...

However, if a poster criticises the way i write? My mother tongue?
My grammar?
My English?

I want to invade Leicester and re establish Rutland as a county by military force. I will be in the van, shouting northern vernacular as we enter the region, splitting infinitives, using double superlatives and incorrect verb conjugation before taking the church and strategic local hall (recently refurbished by the volunteer women's society doing excellent voluntary work in that area)

Language brings out the beast in us.

And I'm the same way(without the grammar stuff you mentioned)! What I'm saying is there is no good reason for that behavior today. As far as I can tell it exists because of science once being an endeavor for the affluent in society. They would train to beat each other grammatically in a word fight, instead of punching one another in the mouth! Nothing meaningful is being accomplished by the correction of lightly questionable grammar - I find it tawdry and childish. It's nothing more than a substitute for physical violence - an intellectual bullying tactic..."I'm right...I can't pinpoint how exactly, but I know your grammar is poor...so there is that" If anything, when people start correcting my grammar online, that is when I know they are weak.

 

[BVirtual]

The nitpicking of slight grammar corrections for best value of the thread reader is best done by private email, so the post can be corrected, without adding extra posts to a super interesting thread, that does not involve grammar.

In other words, posting "off charter" and "off topic" corrections publicly, rather than privately, is wasting MANY readers' time. IMHO. Certainly mine. <smile>

 

[erobz]

The nitpicking of slight grammar corrections for best value of the thread reader is best done by private email

I don't think it's "best done" at all. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[gleem]

Maybe the brainwashing just that effective that I just do it without any concept of it?

Why spend so much time on grammar? So I could determine what you meant without reading it several times.

Maybe the instruction was so effective that I do it without thinking about it? Maybe.

 

[erobz]

@gleem If you can do the proper calculation without thinking about the underlying theory, it is irrelevant. No one will ever actually find themselves with five consecutive "that" words in a sentence they have constructed without alternatives that will be better for conveying the idea.

 

[Mark44]

What I'm saying is there is no good reason for that behavior today. As far as I can tell it exists because of science once being an endeavor for the affluent in society.

It has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with class; e.g., the historical difference in education levels between royalty and the local gentry, who are presumed to be better educated, and the peasants, who may have had little education or even none at all.

There's an expectation that people who speak for a living, such as TV reporters, teachers, and others or those who need to write reports as part of their jobs will be able to use their own language in a way that is grammatically correct. You seldom hear someone on a TV news show say something like, "The senate didn't do nothing today, as they was not in session."

@gleem If you can do the proper calculation without thinking about the underlying theory, it is irrelevant.

I think you missed @gleem's point, where he surmised that he had learned grammar so well that he didn't need to think about it. That is not to say that the instruction he received was irrelevant.

 

[erobz]

It has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with class; e.g., the historical difference in education levels between royalty and the local gentry, who are presumed to be better educated, and the peasants, who may have had little education or even none at all.

There's an expectation that people who speak for a living, such as TV reporters, teachers, and others or those who need to write reports as part of their jobs will be able to use their own language in a way that is grammatically correct. You seldom hear someone on a TV news show say something like, "The senate didn't do nothing today, as they was not in session."

I think you missed @gleem's point, where he surmised that he had learned grammar so well that he didn't need to think about it. That is not to say that the instruction he received was irrelevant.

I think you are missing my point. I can learn (and have learned) the acceptable (or very close to) speech/writing patterns with nil application of conceptual knowledge of the grammatical theory that dictates "this is correct". Like I said. I couldn't tell you what a verb is or give an example of one at this moment without looking it up, (let alone the exotic grammatical entities discussed here)! Yet here I am... communicating effectively.

 

[symbolipoint]

@gleem If you can do the proper calculation without thinking about the underlying theory, it is irrelevant. No one will ever actually find themselves with five consecutive "that" words in a sentence they have constructed without alternatives that will be better for conveying the idea.

The use of "That" was a informal assignment which the teacher gave to the class. Repassing that event into the topic here seemed a stimulating and related idea.

edit:
The use of five "That" in a row was an informal assignment which the teacher gave to the class. Repassing that event into the topic here seemed to be a stimulating and related idea.

 

[Mark44]

I think you are missing my point. I can learn (and have learned) the acceptable (or very close to) speech/writing patterns with nil application of conceptual knowledge of the grammatical theory that dictates "this is correct".

I don't think I'm missing your point. I agree that what you write does seem to show me that you have good skills in writing, so some of what you have complained about must have sunk in over the years.

Like I said. I couldn't tell you what a verb is or give an example of one at this moment without looking it up,

Even though I don't see anything wrong with your writing, it seems very unfortunate to me that you don't know what such a basic part of speech is. I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't be able to pick out the verb in a simple example such as "Mary ate the apple."

My argument here is that you seem to be thinking that whatever amount of time you spent learning grammar in grades 1 through 12 was a waste of time. I disagree with this assessment. In your current job aren't there times when you have to deliver some sort of formal report to your professional peers? For myself, whenever I had to speak in front of my peers or students or prepare some document as a presentation, I put in a lot of effort to make it polished and professional. I was able to do so because of my knowledge of the subject area as well as my grasp of grammar.

(let alone the exotic grammatical entities discussed here)! Yet here I am... communicating effectively.

The examples you're referring to, with multiple "that"s really have only a small connection to grammar. As such, they were not very germane to the main thrust of this thread.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed for Moderation to consider a report from a member about this thread...

 

[Mark44]

Edited to remove erroneous information.
If anyone has a good reason to reopen the thread, please PM me. Otherwise, the thread will remain closed.