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

[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".

 

[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.