Teaching about Language

By Karen S. Uehling, Boise State University

A great deal of discussion on the Teaching Basic Writing and Conference on Basic Writing Listservs last year centered around teaching about language or the value or lack of value of teaching--what shall we call it?--grammar, style, register, voice, correctness, syntax, conventions, usage, mechanics, or surface features of the language. Basic writing instructors seem inevitably to drift into this topic (and freshman comp teachers do too). Now we have the opportunity to address the topic directly. I would like to pose three basic questions:

1.                  If? Should language “skills” be taught at all? If so, why? If not, why not, and if not some form of language study, then what? That is, how do language skills get better without studying language directly? How can we justify to students our decision not to include language study of some kind?

2.                  How? If we should teach language skills, what should be the content, method, and sequence of instruction? Most of us give lip service to the notion that language skills should be taught in the context of student’s writing, but what does this mean in practice? A related question, if you agree that some form of study is appropriate, what are your most teachable strategies, your best tips and hints?

3.                  When/where? If we should teach language skills, what should be the scene of instruction?

Some possible (too) brief responses to the above questions:

1. If—

Voices I’ve listened to:

Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer (1963): “The teaching of formal grammar has a negligible or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing”  (37-38).

Patrick Hartwell (1985): “I have never in my life tested a sentence for completeness, and I am a better writer—and probably a better person—as a consequence” (120).

George Hillocks (1986): “Teachers who impose the systematic study of traditional school grammar on their students [. . .] do them a gross disservice which should not be tolerated by anyone concerned with the effective teaching of good writing. We need to learn how to teach usage and mechanics after careful task analysis and with minimal grammar” (248-249).

Rei Noguchi (1991): “The hard-line anti-grammar teachers [. . .] are just as misguided and self-defeating as the hard-line pro-grammar teachers [. . .] . What is needed [is] a middle ground where students can learn about the detection, consequences, and elimination of unconventional features without diminishing the desire to write and improve” (14).

Susanmarie Harrington and Linda Adler-Kassner (1998) after surveying the Journal of Basic Writing from 1978-1998: “[Basic writers . . .] share a common characteristic that cuts across institutions and courses: there are more errors in their writing than there are in the writing of ‘non-BW’ writers” (16).

Could I really teach a writing course and say nothing about language?

How do language skills get better without studying them directly? That is, how do we justify to students not offering a review of traditional grammar? This is an especially important issue with adult learners. Here are some answers I pose in my basic writing textbook, both explanations and things to do:

·        Writing is saying something to someone for a purpose. Intention is important, and the desire to make a meaning and communicate that meaning will naturally foster a desire to communicate clearly, aesthetically, and correctly.

·        Acquiring grammar is like acquiring knowledge of a new city or learning a new software program—we learn what we need to know to carry out a purpose.

·        We should limit drill and skill because they’re not adult learning methods. Passive, repetitive forms of leaning violate the principle that the best learning is active, self-chosen, and relevant (Knowles).

·        Writing includes three major components: invention, arrangement, and style. Grammar and correctness are just one part of style; further, invention and arrangement are usually considered more important than style (Noguchi).

·        Develop a positive approach to editing by focusing on what's working and not working.

·        Do the things writers do: read a lot, write a lot, and think of yourself as a writer (Smith).

·        Practice error analysis of your own work (Shaughnessy; Kroll and Schafer).

·        Train your ears by reading your paper aloud.

·        Train your eyes by adjusting your vision to where you are in the writing process.

·        Collaborate.

·        Take a playful approach to language through techniques like imitation, collecting "tricks," and language games. More about this at the end of this document.

·        To this list I would now add read full-length, challenging books (with guidance), especially books where language is focal. An example is Victor Villanueva’s Bootstraps. As a postmodern text, Bootstraps breaks many of the “rules” of modern writing, like tense consistency, consistency of person, and sentence boundaries; such shifts make language central and require readers to work actively to determine meaning. Being compelled by the text to stop, look, and think about language is one way to develop awareness of language and the kind of seeing required for good editing skills. Also, this kind of reading demands a conscious act of meaning making and of creative, synthetic thinking—thus readers must actively make sense of the text.

2. How—

Content/method/sequence

What should be the content of instruction?

How much language knowledge do basic writers need? What are the minimum grammatical skills needed? Are there language skills that open the door to later awareness of more language skills? Rei Noguchi offers a response to “how much” that I find workable: a minimum “writer’s grammar.” Noguchi identifies the items in the writer’s grammar by crossing studies of students’ most common errors (Connors and Lunsford) with studies of which errors most mark writers or offend certain audiences (Hairston).

What should be the method of instruction?

Having identified a set of terms/understandings, there are several methods to consider:

• Noguchi’s “writer’s grammar”
• The “X-word” grammar 1
• Constance Weaver’s grammar for teachers
• Joe Williams’ ten lessons in style, perhaps adapted
• Sentence combining (See, for example, Morenberg and Sommers or Strong.)
• Copying passages (Corbett)
• Many others

What should be the sequence of instruction?

And what exactly does “teaching grammar in the context of student writing” mean in practice?

A possible sequence of instruction for teaching in context:

1. Handout that explains basics of an important editing technique
2. Video that shows a student editing own papers using the technique with teacher guidance
3. Practice with technique on an overhead with at least paragraph-long pieces to edit
4. Marking and identifying where error occurs on student papers
5. Just commenting in margin of student papers that error is present

[The editing technique that I have tried with this sequence is Noguchi’s strategy for eliminating fragments. This technique uses the following sentence test frame:

"They refused to believe the idea that _____." Plug a sequence of words into the slot. Only sentences will work in the slot (with the exception of questions or commands). I simplified the test frame to “I think that ____,” suggested by my recently retired colleague Jay King.]

3. When/where—

What should be the scene of instruction?

• Never
• Only in last half or third or fourth of semester
• In quick language “spots” throughout the term, which are directly connected to the kind of writing being done (e.g., review punctuation of dialogue while working on narratives).
• Hold individual conferences in office or classroom on error patterns.
• Hold group conferences with students with similar error patterns.
• Teach the whole class only the most common errors, then the second most common, as you have time.
• Hand student a book for self-study (handbooks, sentence combining, etc.).
• Send student to Writing Center for help.
• List one or two most prominent errors on student’s paper after informal error analysis (assuming also comments on strengths of paper and on areas of invention and arrangement).
• Have students work in editing and proofreading groups just as they worked (earlier) in feedback/revision groups.
• Give entire class a grammar test based on most frequent errors of your student population. Use test as a neutral means for students to identify their weaknesses; assign individual self-study.

A return to #2:  How—

Tricks and hints: shortcuts, memory aids, and simple devices that help writers remember specific points. Two examples (written for students):

            A student suggested that the way to distinguish to from too is to test its pronunciation in a sentence. If you could say ta, then the spelling is to. Examples: "I'm going ta the store." "I want ta go with you." In both of those cases the spelling has just one o. However, if you have to say oo, too, the spelling has two o's. Examples: "He's too late," not "ta late." "I need bacon too," not "I need bacon ta."

            The exception to the to/too guideline occurs when to ends a sentence or phrase, and therefore the oo sound is emphasized. For example, consider this sentence: "All my friends were going to college, and I guess my parents more or less expected me to." The correct spelling of the last word is to, even though the sound is oo. In this case, the to is short for to go. Here is another example: "Professors would ask the students questions no one knew the answers to, just to hear what they might say." The to after answers in the middle of the sentence is spelled correctly; the oo sound is emphasized because the to occurs at the end of the phrase.

            Here is a trick for deciding whether or not to use an apostrophe with it's or its. It's means "it is." Think of the apostrophe as a small i hanging down between the t and the s. The apostrophe even looks like an i. Its without the apostrophe is the possessive form, as in "The dog wagged its tail." (Uehling 234)

Students seem to love these kinds of hints. Do you have any to share?

A final word:

Of course, I don’t want our discussion to be primarily the sharing of tricks and hints or the explaining of methods, but I think some of this would be useful and interesting, especially if embedded within the larger questions I have asked about language study and its place in the basic writing classroom. I do not pretend to have the “answer” to these questions, but I do think it’s important to raise them. At the least, our discussion can provide us with a catalogue of language study ideas, alternatives, and justifications, which we can later use to evaluate what is possible and to decide what to do or not do.

Works Consulted and Recommended

Braddock, Richard, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer. Research in Written Composition.  Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1963.

Butler, John F.  "Remedial Writers: The Teacher's Job as Corrector of Papers." A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers.  Ed. Theresa Enos. NY: Random House, 1987.  557-564.

Connors, Robert J. "Grammar in American College Composition: A Historical Overview."  The Territory of Language: Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition.  Ed. Donald A. McQuade. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 1986.  3-22.

Connors, Robert J., and Andrea Lunsford.  "Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research."  College Composition and Communication 39 (1988): 395-409.

Corbett, Edward P.J.  Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. NY: Oxford UP: 1990. See pp. 475-476 for instructions on copying passages.

Fortune, Sara D'Eloia. "The Uses--and Limits--of Grammar."  A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers.  Ed. Theresa Enos. NY: Random House, 1987.  373-416.

Hairston, Maxine.  "Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in the Professions Respond to Lapses in Usage."  College English 43 (1981): 794-806.

Harrington, Susanmarie, and Linda Adler-Kassner. " 'The Dilemma That Still Counts': Basic Writing at a Political Crossroads." Journal of Basic Writing 17.2 (1998): 3-24.

Hartwell, Patrick. "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar." College English 47 (1985): 105-127.

Hillocks, George, Jr.  Research in Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English, 1986.

Hull, Glynda. "Constructing Taxonomies for Error (or Can Stray Dogs Be Mermaids?)"  A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers.  Ed. Theresa Enos. NY: Random House, 1987.  231-244.

Knowles, Malcolm S.  The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species.  3rd ed.  Houston: Gulf, 1984.

Kroll, Barry M., and John C. Schafer. "Error-Analysis and the Teaching of Composition." A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers.  Ed. Theresa Enos. NY: Random House, 1987.  208-215.

Lees, Elaine O. "Proofreading as Reading, Errors as Embarrassments." A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers.  Ed. Theresa Enos. NY: Random House, 1987.  216-230.

Morenberg, Max, and Jeff Sommers, with Donald A. Daiker and Andrew Kerek.  The Writer’s Options: Lessons in Style and Arrangement. 6th ed. NY: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999.

Noguchi, Rei. Grammar and the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities.  Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1991.

Shaughnessy, Mina P.  Errors & Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing.  NY: Oxford UP, 1977.

Smith, Frank. Writing and the Writer. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982.

Strong, William.  Sentence Combining: A Composing Book.  3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Uehling, Karen S.  Starting Out or Starting Over: A Guide for Writing.  NY: HarperCollins, 1993.

Villanueva, Victor, Jr. Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color.  Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993. 

Weaver, Constance.  Teaching Grammar in Context.  Portsmouth, NH:  Boynton/Cook, 1996.

Williams, Joseph M.  Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity & Grace.  6th ed.  NY: Longman, 2000.

---.  “The Phenomenology of Error.”  College Composition and Communication 32 (1981): 152-68.

Footnotes: