Is traditional grammar a waste of time?The Times for Wednesday 19 January 2005 contained an article entitled "Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics". Is this what really academics say? If so, are they right?The teaching of grammar in schools has been around for a long time and has consistently been at the centre of debate over the course of history. Recently, The Times for Wednesday 19th January 2005 contained an article entitled "Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics". My aim in this assignment is to find out what academics really say in regards to the issue concerning grammar teaching. I will predominantly concentrate on the effects of grammar teaching in relation to writing. I will investigate all the available evidence and see if the respective judgments of the academics are justified.
I will commence by defining 'grammar' about which The grammar papers (1998:11) in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) website say "In everyday speech, the word 'grammar' is often used to refer to almost any feature of language structure or usage, including spelling, punctuation and pronunciation, and is frequently associated with notions of correctness.
Chomsky grammar 0
Grammar
English: A visual depiction of the various grammat...In academic terms, grammar is part of the broader study of language known as linguistics." Brindley (1994:224) says that linguists "see grammar as the way language is structured". He further clarifies "This structure includes the organization of stretches of speech or writing (discourse structure); sentence structure (syntax); how words are made up (morphology); and patterns of sounds and written symbols (phonology and graphology)". More specifically 'traditional grammar' is described by Andrews et al (2004) in their review: 'The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and quality in written composition' as "Sentence grammars that tend to focus on the internal...