This reading begins somewhat dishearteningly. Given the amount of time that I have spent trying to learn English grammar, I can’t help but be slightly peeved when the author states that teaching grammar is not an effective way for children to enhance their communication abilities. Furthermore, throughout the reading we look at descriptive rules -- which makes perfect sense -- but I’m just a little bitter that middle school me worked so hard to learn all of the prescriptive rules of grammar.
Aside from my personal chagrin, throughout the reading I kept being reminded of what it would be like to learn English as a non-native speaker. Derivational suffixes are certainly a useful tool in learning languages and making intuitive leaps in said language. However, it must be incredibly frustrating to realize that English is not exactly a regular language -- the patterns that the language form are broken fairly often. It’s hard to know when to use in- versus un-. And homophony in affixes poses a whole other issue. Using the same prefixes and suffixes to mean different things -- the example given in the book is that adding an -s to a verb makes it third person singular while adding an -s to a noun makes it plural. I can only imagine how hard these kinds of things are when you’re picking up the language. When I took Latin in high school I always looked for subtle patterns that would make memorizing things easier, and any variation in those patterns was always extra difficult to learn. I can only imagine that dealing with this is even more frustrating when the language is spoken.
I found that the reading provided a good look into how to examine Language. Syntax is an often overlooked aspect of having fluency in a language. One can have mastery over vocabulary, but this knowledge is somewhat useless if he or she does not possess the ability to place the words in a natural order.
Interesting perspective, Emily! I too imagined what it would be like to learn English from an outsider's perspective. Having grown up speaking English, the "rules" of English have come naturally -- further emphasizing the fact that children do in fact learn language more easily than we are to learn language now. With regards to your last paragraph, I think that even more than just knowledge of vocabulary, but knowledge of worldy matters in general become utterly useless if we are not able to leverage syntax to effectively communicate our thoughts in a meaningful, unambiguous way.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing Emily! I definitely agree that learning English is no small feat--especially given how many of readings we've done recently seem to equate learning a language with a "universal grammar" or instinct. Does this mean that despite all the grammatical rules and vocabulary we learn, we'll never become fully "fluent" unless we have the instinct for it?
ReplyDeleteI used the word "instinct" in my own post, but I realize now that the word can be misleading. It doesn't mean that formal instruction is fruitless. Rather, I think "instinct" itself is a learned trait. For example, as we read, listen, and speak a language more, we develop a grasp of some of the slang, and start to catch on to the language patterns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Emily!
ReplyDeleteI am one of those kids who learned English without learning much grammar in class. It was taught in my classroom, but I always thought it was boring and would zone out whenever it was reviewed in class. Now, I'm fluent in everything English but wish I knew some of the formal rules of the language like you do, especially when taking classes such as this one. In the end, how effectively you communicate is what matter, at least it seems to me from personal experience and the theme of this class, which stresses the absence of incorrect Language. If there is any correctness to language, it seems as thought it is determined when put into context with society and those surrounding you.