Grammar

Grammar (or other “mechanical correctness” norms) are integral parts of language, and
I think it is hard not to admit that they are necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for effective use of language. Moreover, they are skills that have to be learned naturally as an integral part of the development of one’s linguistic abilities. The question is what is the best way to achieve (or at least approach) this goal.

Let us consider an example not too far off from that of grammar: mathematics.
Obviously one needs to know a certain level of rudimentary mathematics in order to be able to live a successful life. In many cases however, one needs to know quite more. An architect or a designer needs to combine artistic perspectives with geometrical understanding, many areas of humanities and biological sciences require proficiency in advanced statistics and probability, and of course math is the default language of engineering and physics. However, math and geometry are notorious and almost universally dreaded by many. Why is that? Is there something inherently difficult about them? I think the reason for this notoriety lies not so much with the inherent discipline of math, but more with the way most of us come to first encounter it. We are forced throughout our school years to learn math and geometry, but for most of us it is not clear why, especially when the concepts start to move away from experience and into more abstract realms. However, if more emphasis is put on the relationship between the abstract concepts and the real world problems they are trying to address, the concepts become much more natural and teachable, as indeed they were first developed precisely in that order. Some people have encountered a certain problem and in order to solve it they had to invent the required math. I remember when I was first forced to learn calculus I was tormented and bewildered. But later on when I really saw the need for it, I came to understand and appreciate it, and then I was able to use it effectively in my professional projects. It changed from a solution waiting for a problem, to a solution that really could solve problems.

The same principles hold for grammar (or other “mechanical correctness” norms). If they are taught out of the blue and without enough motivation, students remain puzzled and confused, and grammar will continue to be dreaded. However, in reality, grammar is just a compact way of characterizing how people have naturally come to use language. Native speakers of a language speak it correctly, and can detect the majority of obvious grammatical errors, without being able to give the grammatical “rules” behind their skills. They have gained these skills through observation, absorption, and imitation. A formal, “rule-based” abstraction of the skills that they already innately know will thus be very natural. In the same way, if we want to advance the linguistic skills of students further, we need to first show those concepts in practical examples, and have them absorb those skills through observation and imitation. “Mechanical norms of correctness” can then be introduced gradually and only in conjunction with such natural usage, as a way to help students to use and apply those naturally absorbed skills in new situations.