Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

The de-emphasis on grammar is mostly political, in the US. Proscriptive grammar was invented in the 18th century as part of the movement to make English more like Latin. Before then the only rules were the ones people learned through usage. Some of the new rules were actually contrary to the way people actually spoke. Proscriptive grammar had to be taught, since no one actually spoke that way, although it in general was based on the speech of the upper classes. Yes, I can give examples if you really need them. (The really classic ones are things like the prohibition on double negatives and the rule about dangling prepositions at the end of sentences).

This meant that Standard English was good and dialect was bad. It was way easier for the upper classes to change their speech and writing to match the new rules than it was for people working there way up the social ladder or those from less privileged regions. Over time, the barrier became harder to breech.

In the '60's and '70's, a movement for Descriptive Grammar gained momentum. Basically, people were arguing that we should study how people actually speak instead of telling people how to speak and write. This dovetailed with a lot of people being angry about class, regional, and racial issues. For example, in America, no Southerners speak "good English." Also, a lot of people of colour saw attempts to teach them "white English," as another attempt to put down their culture. Over here, teaching Proscriptive grammar came to be seen as actively racist. The larger movement in Linguistics became heavily politicized.

Added to this are "World English" issues that have cropped up. A number of countries are using a local form of English mixed with the local language(s) for reasons of their own. For example, in India, it is easier to learn and use "Hinglish" than learn all the local languages, some of which are spoken by ethnic groups that don't like each other. Hinglish is relatively politically neutral and dead useful as a lingua franca, but it isn't much like "Standard English" as spoken in England and the US. The people who speak it insist it's a legitimate form of English, and arguing otherwise would quickly open you to charges of Imperialism.

What's an English teacher to do? In the US, we teach "writing conventions" instead of Grammar. This means basically teaching academic English, punctuation, and stuff like "there/their." Modern english teachers do it very carefully and in small doses because it's very easy to anger people.


Also, I'll tell you a secret: Everybody finds Grammar boring, even English teachers. There is a push to make learning more fun and interesting, so all the above gives us an excuse not to teach much of it. It's as if someone declared that Brussel Sprouts are not only bad for you, but are racist.