Grammar Police

Grammar Police arrest this man. He talks in maths. He buzzes like a fridge. He's like a de-tuned radio.

For those who do not know, that is my parody of Radiohead's Karma Police. And I know, I know, it should say Usage Police - but that just does not have the same ring to it!

I appreciate Williams effort to distinguish usage from grammar. Unfortunately, if it has become culturally acceptable to use grammar to indicate both, then why not dispense with the distinction all together?

Who found it shocking that studying grammar does not lead to better writing? I know I did. Grammar (and usage) was, after all, constantly drilled into our heads at a young age. Even at home, while trying to enjoy Saturday morning cartoons, we could not escape from the occasional grammar (and usage) lesson:



School House Rock was sure to inundate our young minds with the parts of speech...

Also of interest, especially for those of us aspiring writing instructors, was the bit at the end of page 177 where Williams quotes T.R. Johnson:

"Although we rarely detect the errors that dot the texts of professionals, we actively seek them out in student texts, and when we find them, we figuratively slash them, often with 'bloody' red ink: that is, we expose the texts as unclean, impure, and thus unfit for full membership in the academic community..."

Mightn't we take that argument one step further by suggesting that not only can the bloody red ink have the above affect (or is it effect?) on the student, it can also be the result of an unconscious psychological grab for power or need to dominate on the part of the instructor? If so, that could act as a potential barrier in a student's ability to learn. They already have power structures they must deal with at home. Why not do away with the teacher-student power model and instead do our best to create an inclusive partnership with our students?

So, if studying grammar (and usage) do not improve students ability to write, why bother with it at all? Williams has an answer (and what I personally believe to be the most important insight of the chapter):

"Students need to expand their repertoire of language skills and conventions, not reduce them, which surely would be the outcome of any serious effort at abolishing academic conventions. The reason is straightforward: Standard English is deemed appropriate and acceptable in the widest range of situations" (182).

This is important because our classrooms will undoubtedly be very diverse. And so, as instructors we need to be conscious of modes of communication that may have cultural relevance to a student - even though they may not be the academically accepted forms of communication - so as not to marginalize the student or their culture while at the same time doing our best to show that student the benefits of academic conventions.

Lastly, let me just say that I have personally witnessed the benefits of direct instruction complemented by indirect instruction during six semesters study of the French Language. As we would listen to native speakers (direct instruction), we were better suited to understand and recognize our own mistakes through supplemental (or indirect) instruction and thereby improve our acquisition.