Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Actively teach grammar or acquire by osmosis?

I totally agree with this. I also very, very firmly believe that direct, intense grammar instruction in the first language is hugely beneficial to learning other languages.

Maybe my dd is a grammar geek or maybe the way she was taught was just very cool, but she enjoyed grammar work and would choose it. I still feel really inadequate in this area.

Do you feel it causes problems in your day-to-day life? If so, how? Or is it more that you feel like you have an embarrassing knowledge gap? I did eventually learn a lot of grammar terms when I took French. I never knew the terms before and I've forgotten what many of them mean. For example, I can remember the phrase "the pluperfect" without remembering what specifically it refers to. I can see how this could bother some people. It doesn't bother me, and it doesn't seem to bother the professors who pay me to edit their journal articles.

I sometimes feel that people who are obsessive zealots about technical grammar terms, sentence diagramming, etc., need to relax a little and learn to rely more on their natural ear. (I am not intending to specifically refer to anyone here. I just think that good writing is more art than science. There are rules, certainly, but there is not a formula.)

That, in a nutshell, is exactly why it should be taught. Someone who doesn't learn the lingo can't teach it to someone else. If a teacher makes an editing mistake, the student can't articulate why they had it right. Etc.

Also, it's pretty easy to fall into bad habits, and knowing the rules makes them easy to correct. For example... sometimes I'm guilty of abusing ellipses... they look kinda cool... and they convey what I'm trying to say in the manner I'm attempting to say it... but once it gets out of control, I can look back and see where I'd be just as well served with commas and periods.

I think this thread is talking about two different things, but using the term "grammar" for both of them. When I use the term grammar, I'm talking about identifying parts of speech (noun, verb, etc), parts of a sentence (subject, predicate, direct object, etc), and clauses (dependent, independent) and all the concepts that build on these basic ones.

But I think, when we talk about learning grammar by osmosis, people are actually talking about usage (subject/verb agreement, etc) and mechanics (punctuation, capitalization, etc).

So, yes, I think that one could learn usage and mechanics to a great degree by osmosis, but I don't think that one is going to learn grammar itself by osmosis.

The Language Arts and Writing (LAW) component of EPGY for the elementary grades covers grammar, and my kids use it. EPGY also has grammar courses for junior high school students, descriptions copied below. Has anyone tried them?

http://epgy.stanford.edu/courses/english/secd.html
EG20 Grammar and Style of the Sentence

This is a self-paced grammar course designed to help 7th to 12th grade students understand grammar and make stylistic choices informed by their knowledge of grammar. Topics include effective subject and verb choice, active and passive voice, clause coordination and subordination, sentence fragments, comma splices and run-together sentences, and phrasal modifiers (including verbal constructions or finite verbs). The course runs over the web. We strongly recommend that students enrolled in the W10 or W11 series also take EG20 concurrently.

Completion time: 1 quarter.

Please note: The EG20 course requires the Windows operating system and will not function with the Mac OS.

EG21 Grammar and Style of the Sentence II

The second of two self-paced grammar courses, EG21 is designed to help 7th to 12th grade students both further their understanding of grammar and make informed stylistic choices in their own writing. Topics include: verb moods, tense and irregularities; pronoun case, antecedents, appositives and usage; dangling modifiers, and selected punctuation topics. The course runs over the web. We strongly recommend that students complete EG20 before enrolling in EG21.

Completion time: 1 quarter.

I suppose I could identify dependent clauses and indirect objects if I had to, but I'm rather hazy on them at this point. I would probably do pretty poorly on a "grammar terminology" test, but I could pass a challenging editing test. Really, it doesn't come up very much, even when one is an editor. If I ever feel like I need back-up because someone is being didactic about this sort of thing, I just look it up. There are some terms I do use and refer to, because they actually come up; subject-verb agreement is one. It's just useful shorthand with authors. Dependent clause...not so much.

I may not be a very good example here, since this is an area of high ability for me. But it probably is for most of us here, and for many of our kids. My husband isn't as good of an editor or writer as I am, but he's very good. He doesn't know what a dependent clause is. I can guarantee it. It doesn't matter.

OTOH, Bostonian's course sounds okay. I'm certainly in favor of anything that improves writing skills! Learning to avoid run-on sentences sounds great. I have not the slightest idea what this means, though:

Quote

phrasal modifiers (including verbal constructions or finite verbs

That is complete meaningless blahspeak to me.

I wonder if this course has an actual teacher or is multiple-choice nonsense. Really--a good teacher who edits your work is what you need.

I laughed at this. My DS8 is a natural editor too. He's been pointing out errors for a few years now. I work as an editor -- I actually asked a coworker last week "whatever happened to the Oxford comma?" -- and so I always feel a great sense of pride when DS finds errors in writing! His own writing is another matter though... he doesn't seem to care much yet. I'm hopeful that DS's school will do a good job with grammar, otherwise I'll step in at some point.

The Oxford comma is alive and well--but not in journalism, generally speaking. AP style dictates no Oxford comma. Many authors have picked this up, probably unconsciously.

Count me as another individual whose GT pullout classes left me lacking formal grammar instruction. Yes, and... yes. About the ellipses... Of course, also the sentence fragment, I suppose. And parentheses. I love me a good parenthetical aside; and really, why restrict one's self to just one. So for me personally--sometimes? Not in my case! LOL!! In my defense, I certainly do not approach formal writing with such grammar and usage. No, only e-mails and message board posts, where some unconventional applications of mechanics and punctuation serve as a surrogate for body language and tone. It's about the communication, after all.

Approximately 90% of my usage is osmotically-derived, which drove my thesis advisor bananas, as he was very much a "by-the-book" grammatical despot. It made him nuts that I had no idea what he was talking about half the time ("Ablative-- HUH??"). On the other hand, he had no perspective on when "correct" ticked right on over into "incomprehensible and therefore futile, since while grammatically punctilious, this sentence is also obscene in both length and technicality, rendering it distasteful or even repellent to the average, (perhaps even the non-average), reader." In my estimation, this is a cardinal sin as a writer.

Seriously; the man's journal article titles ROUTINELY ran four lines on the masthead and contained semicolons. I like to think that he learned a thing or two about communication skills from yours truly. I was simply too stubborn to let grammar get in the way of communication. Most people simply liked my editorial suggestions better than his, ultimately. My thesis committee members complimented me on the "clearest" introduction ever from our research group (as in "thank you so much-- now I finally understand what y'all DO in there!")-- the first that the PI had ever apparently "dispaired" of editing to HIS (rather than the student's) satisfaction. I think he may have cracked a molar when he had to listen to that particular compliment. LOL. I was just far more concerned about clarity than making myself look 'well-educated.' That's something that I learned from a family member who was an author-- never forget that you are writing to be READ and UNDERSTOOD. That trumps everything else.


Yes again. The thing is, if an individual writer's usage is excellent, then is a lack of formal grammar training really a problem? I would suggest that it is probably not. This is another of those things like spelling, I'm guessing. Some people just know when they are using passive voice or leaving modifiers dangling, and all the rules-rules-rules just serve to confuse them. With all of that said, I'm very pleased that my daughter has had the opportunity to learn intermediate and even some advanced grammar, but I don't know that I'd call it "essential" necessarily, and she seems to be in the group that found all of those rules about it all fairly perplexing.

The point about learning a second language is an interesting one.