According to Hudson (2010:239), semantic differences in languages do make a difference to a person’s way of thinking about the world. This seems reminiscent of linguistic determinism (Saussure 1960) which maintains that the way in which individuals think and perceive the world is dependent on their language. However, Hudson (2010) adds an important caveat: ‘that these ways of thinking only apply when we’re thinking or speaking’ (ibid) i.e. when we are ‘thinking for speaking’ (Slobin 1996:239). In these instances, we adjust our thinking to fit the words available and, in doing so, we cut ‘our semantic coat to fit our lexical cloth’ (Hudson 2010:239). Therefore, partly through language, our conceptual ideas develop and they do so according to the concepts of our culture and the categories of our society. In this way, Hudson argues,
33
language as a cognitive network contributes to social meaning and social identity (2010:241), in turn creating relations of power and solidarity (2010:243).
That said, unlike the effects provided by social situations to develop cultural concepts, grammatical terminology would seem to be different. It does not normally occur incidentally in everyday contexts, denoting simple things or ideas (Berry 2010:21). Instead, grammatical terminology is a scientifically structured system of symbolic representations, of labels to denote categories of language concepts. As such, it represents a distinct body of taught knowledge: a language which would not normally be developed as part of everyday non-educational discourse. Thus, the phenomenon of grammatical terminology forms part of schooled grammar and is concerned with ‘conscious retrospective meta-reflection’ (Giovanelli 2015:37). When Halliday coined the term ‘Grammatics’ to denote the study of the phenomenon of grammar, he proposed ‘a way of using grammar to think with’ (Halliday 2002:416). Berry (2010:21) maintains that access to these complex concepts is ‘difficult, if not impossible, without the term’, even if the concepts exist in someone’s mind without having a term. It is this ‘closeness and mutual dependency of concepts and terms’ which can cause the confusion, although Berry maintains that the controversies are more often conceptual than terminological (ibid). Bloor and Bloor (2004) concur, noting the high level of abstraction within conceptual understanding.
Vygotsky draws the relationship between language and thought even closer together. He identifies ‘word meaning’ as the concept, arguing that word meaning is a unit of verbal thinking that ‘cannot be further decomposed’. It is a generalisation, reflecting the unity of thinking and speech (1987:244), a unity of ‘generalization and social interaction’ (1987:49). In doing so, Vygotsky places language at the centre of human development and consciousness. Vygotsky argues that this is a new type of word meaning which he refers to as the “scientific” concept. Scientific (or academic or technical) words which relate to subject matter concepts are particularly prevalent in school. Thus, Vygotsky presents language as being essential in developing children’s intellectual skills: learning scientific concepts requires conscious focus and attention, different from every day, spontaneous concepts learned through personal experience without conscious thought. His work on thought and language concludes that the study of grammar is ‘of paramount importance for the mental development of the child’ (1986:183).
Paradoxically, this grammatical terminology is also perceived as a means of representing a system “already known”, even to the young child. Vygotsky cites ‘arithmetic’ as a contrasting example: a taught concept which would seem to provide the child with more obvious ‘new abilities’, while ‘instruction in grammar does not seem to provide the child with new capacities in this sense’ (Vygotsky 1987:205). As a result, the purpose and value of grammar teaching has been a constant source of doubt and debate. In the case of grammatical word meanings, the lines are blurred around what can be characterised as declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge is framed as ‘knowing that’ and procedural knowledge as ‘knowing how’ (Anderson 1983). Essentially, when young children have the ability to use grammatical concepts unconsciously, without control and without any meaningful naming or labelling, they seem to be able to demonstrate ‘procedural knowledge’ before ‘declarative knowledge’. This does not typically reflect traditional teaching approaches
34
which begin at taught knowledge in controlled production and proceed to application in free or communicative practice by way of their development (Ur 1988).
The work of Bialystock (1994) would seem to be reminiscent of Vygotsky’s notion of scientific and spontaneous concepts. Bialystock examined the cognitive processes involved in the acquisition and use of a second language, establishing a framework built around two cognitive processing components: the process of analysis and the process of control. In the process of analysis, the child moves towards more analysed representations of knowledge which, in turn, leads to greater symbolisation and a greater level of organisation in mental representations. The implicit becomes explicit and the structure and organisation of mental representations becomes more formal and more symbolic and, with that, knowledge becomes more connected and ultimately more accessible (1994:159). In this way, the teaching of grammatical terminology would seem to offer the pupil significant opportunities to develop abstracted thinking and to strengthen the cognition processes of analysis and generalisation. Ultimately, grammatical terminology becomes an efficient and precise way of accessing and discussing functions and purposes (Carter 1990:109). However, it is also seen as being an area of study of value in its own right (e.g. Shaughnessy 1977; Bruss 1982; James and Garrett 1991; Hudson 2010). Elder (2009) suggests benefits relating to cognitive and analytical skills.
However, others claim the reverse. For example, Krashen (1983) points to the sheer challenge and complexity of this level of formal learning that, for many, never becomes acquisition. He states that:
Some adults (and very few children) are able to use conscious rules to increase accuracy of their output, and even for these people, very strict conditions need to be met before the conscious grammar can be applied. (Krashen 1983)
Berry (1997:136) highlights the significance of this particular debate when he writes:
Metalinguistic terminology, however, is more than just content vocabulary; for some it may be enabling (or disabling), an aid (or barrier) to learning itself.
This returns these discussions to the fundamental importance of purpose. As has been shown, ‘prescriptive’ grammar is typically aligned with more traditional and functional perspectives (Goodwyn & Findlay 1999:20), ‘descriptive grammar’ is connected to grammar as it is used in daily life to create meaning; as a ‘science of meaning’ (Halliday 1993:16) and ‘rhetorical’ grammar is linked ‘to larger goals of emancipatory teaching’ committed to ‘teaching critical thinking and cultural critique’ (Micciche 2004:717-8). Although this summary may be simplistic, it hopefully demonstrates the fundamental issue: the significance of establishing the kind of ‘grammar’ we are teaching in order to inform why we are teaching its associated grammatical terminology i.e. its purpose and its value. Thus, what is the nature of the learning we are intending to bring about and why? Perhaps only then the barriers or bridges to learning grammatical terminology can be fully realised. That said, while there may be different conceptualisations of grammar, the one uniting theme is often grammar as a means of manipulating language in meaningful contexts (Hartwell 1985:125).
35
2.3.4 Implications of policy
The Primary National Curriculum seems to be aligned with ‘an adult needs’ view of the curriculum (DES/WO 1989). This view emphasises ‘the responsibility of English teachers to prepare children for the language demands of adult life, including the workplace, in a fast-changing world’ (ibid). For example, in the stated aims of the National Curriculum, reference is made to the ‘essential knowledge that they need to be educated citizens’ (DfE 2013a:6) and ‘Teachers should develop pupils’ reading and writing in all subjects to support their acquisition of knowledge’ (DfE 2014:10). It is a skills-based view of language and literacy learning which makes repeated commitment to the teaching and learning of Standard English.
Within this context, there is a stated purpose relating specifically to ‘Spelling, vocabulary, grammar, punctuation and glossary’ (DfE 2013a:15). For the benefit of this discussion, it is presented in full below:
Pupils should be taught to control their speaking and writing consciously and to use Standard English. They should be taught to use the elements of spelling, grammar, punctuation and ‘language about language’ listed. This is not intended to constrain or restrict teachers’ creativity, but simply to provide the structure on which they can construct exciting lessons. A non-statutory Glossary is provided for teachers. Throughout the programmes of study, teachers should teach pupils the vocabulary they need to discuss their reading, writing and spoken language. It is important that pupils learn the correct grammatical terms in English and that these terms are integrated within teaching. [Emphasis added.]
However, although this section is entitled ‘Purpose of study’, the detail relating to purpose is limited e.g. ‘teachers should teach pupils the vocabulary they need to discuss their reading, writing and spoken language’. While this implies a descriptive grammar, it is crowded out by the dominant prescriptive message of ‘explicit knowledge’ and ‘correct grammatical terms’. Even the notion of language control is skewed by a sense of traditional correctness in the context of ‘taught to control their speaking and writing consciously and to use Standard English [emphasis added]. Other verbs include ‘constrain’ and ‘restrict’, ‘structure’ and ‘construct’ sit in juxtaposition to references to ‘teacher’s creativity’ and ‘exciting lessons’. Thereby, they also inadvertently communicate a feeling of control, reminiscent of Sealey’s ‘linguistics ‘building-blocks’’ analogy (Sealey 1999:89). At other times, there is mention of the explicit knowledge of grammar affording pupils ‘more conscious control and choice in our language’ (DfE 2013a:74), echoing Carter’s call for ‘conscious control and conscious choice over language’ (1990:119). However, again, these lack depth and detail and so it could be argued that these fragments of descriptive grammar are tokenistic, recycled references to the perspectives of established academic debate (e.g. Carter 1990) within previous policy documents (e.g. QCA 1998). Bell (2016:158) highlights the potential for confusion over the purpose of knowledge about grammar, asking: ‘is the aim to develop confidence and offer children ‘control and choice’ (DfE:64) in language use, or to improve their written accuracy?’
Conversely, the ‘Purpose of study’ for grammar could be perceived as being a list of what should be studied rather than why and, although it states that learning the correct grammatical terms is ‘important’, there is no explanation nor elaboration of this. Neither is the phrase ‘integrated within teaching’ elaborated upon. Therefore, a theoretical positionality is not included in any significant way in the current National Curriculum,
36
potentially missing an opportunity to elaborate upon the intended meaning of ‘grammar’. Neither does it situate this intended ‘grammar’ in the broader theoretical context in order to, ‘shed light on pedagogical grammar and provide a rationale for the way one goes about teaching grammar’ (Bourke 2005:85). While different schools of thought are acknowledged, this seems as something of an aside to assuring the clarity of the Programme of Study:
It is recognised that there are different schools of thought on grammar, but the terms defined here clarify those being used in the programmes of study. (DfE 2013a:80)
This lack of theoretical positionality may be intentional, reflecting the national policy of previous years. For example, in 1998, the Grammar Papers stipulated that ‘no one single model of grammar is proposed in the English order’ (QCA 1998:17). However, at that time, only ‘a minimal number of terms’ was prescribed (ibid). In comparison, the 2013a Programme of Study for grammar, the Glossary and Appendix 2 (including the list of terminology) are significantly more substantial which, in addition to the SPaG test, means that the need for related professional development is much greater too. But, instead, teachers are asked to ‘consult the many books that are available’, maintaining that the terminology selected is that of ‘most modern textbooks on English grammar’ (Glossary DfE 2013a:80). Not only does this fail to cite appropriate supporting resources, this comment assumes that all linguists agree on terminology and definitions which is certainly not the case, with some terminology having ‘a different status in different theories’ (Evans and Green 2006:486). Evans and Green (2006:484) maintain that terms have different meanings in different areas or domains e.g. within second language learning, linguistics and the naming of grammatical theory e.g. Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987) and Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1969). Therefore, this is unhelpful to teachers, further complicating an already complex field.
According to Norman (2010:41), this could be seen as ‘avoiding responsibility’ and propagating a gap between policy rhetoric and practical grammar teaching ‘without taking responsibility for the direction of this persistently unpopular and problematic area’. Norman (2010:40) describes this as a ‘coercive policy’. When viewed alongside the high stakes testing arrangements of the SPaG, this can be perceived as an attempt at control of English’s proper content, orientation, ideology and identity - a manifestation of what Bernstein saw as the power of governments to produce official discourses that attempt to redefine school subjects’ legitimate cultural knowledges and identities (Bernstein 2000) and ‘decontextualize the identities of all who work and learn within subject English (Goodson and Medway 1990). Hartwell (1985:114) maintains: ‘At no point in the English curriculum is the question of power more blatantly posed than in the teaching of formal grammar’. Berry writes, ‘terminology is political’ (2010:13).
However, it can be argued that the elements of descriptive grammar are sufficient, and the absence of a policy-prescribed grammar model is beneficial, leaving more to the interpretation and imagination of teachers. Schools retain the professional freedom to debate and decide their own purpose for the teaching of grammar terminology in their schools. Even within the constraints of the SPaG test (DfE 2013b), an understanding of the different ‘grammars’ and an exploration of the benefits and limitations of these with their pupils could lead to an invaluable authentic whole school grammar debate, out of which may grow an heuristic purpose which challenges teachers’ and pupils’ epistemological views about the nature of knowledge and knowing
37
grammatical terminology. However, this would still require a significant commitment to professional development opportunities in order to support teachers in being able to do so.
2.3.5 Section summary
In attempting to address ‘Debates in purpose’, this section has discussed something of the conceptualised purpose, nature and value of grammar and grammatical terminology, presenting descriptive grammar and rhetorical grammar as examples of alternatives to (potentially) more familiar traditional, prescriptive approaches. Drawing upon the literature, it has identified ‘Pupils as language learners’ and ‘Pupils as thinkers’ as the most salient “purposes” for the teaching and learning of grammatical terminology. However, this section has argued that an opportunity to present a clearly articulated and well-developed purpose within the National Curriculum’s ‘Purpose of study’ has been missed (DfE 2013a:15). This gap in official policy could be seen as avoiding responsibility for what is a notoriously problematic area. While this could be perceived positively (e.g. enabling professional freedoms) the implications remain the same i.e. that in the light of the substantial statutory curriculum and assessment requirements related to grammatical terminology, there would seem to be significant and serious implications for the professional development and support of teachers.
This section has explored separately ‘Pupils as language learners’ and ‘Pupils as thinkers’. However, this divide has been an artificial one for the benefit of these discussions and so, at this point, it is essential to merge these “purposes” back together. They reflect something of a far wider discussion of the highly complex interrelationship between language and cognition and the surrounding debates as to whether this is an ‘inter- organism’ approach (between one organism and another) or an intra-organism approach (what goes on inside the organism) (Halliday, Lamb and Regan 1988:2). For Halliday, the emphasis would seem to be on the inter- organism orientation. For Vygotsky, much of his work reflects an intra-organism approach, through his investigations into the conceptual development of the individual through thinking and speech. However, this is not intended to present Vygotsky’s thinking in opposition to Halliday’s. Indeed, Halliday (as a linguist) and Vygotsky (as a psychologist) are in many ways complementary (Wells 1994), with Vygotsky’s later work presenting the individual mind as the internalisation of social behaviour, of which language is regarded as a mediating influence. Together, they reflect Giovanelli’s (2015:38) conclusion of ‘the importance of human cognition and social interaction’.
Therefore, this section has raised the following research question as significant:
Research question 2: What are the pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of the nature, purpose and value of grammatical terminology?
The next section develops the principle inherent in Micciche’s (2004:730) call for action:
We need a discourse about grammar that does not retreat from the realities we face in the classroom—a discourse that takes seriously the connection between writing and thinking, the interwoven relationship between what we say and how we say it. (Micciche 2004:730)
38
It considers some of what is known about the teaching and learning of grammar and grammatical terminology in the primary classroom, thereby presenting a sense of the ‘debates in practice’. That said, discussions of classroom practice are intentionally shorter as some issues have already been addressed (see 2.1 and 2.2). Consequently, this section draws attention to the central importance of the interrelationship between teacher subject knowledge, conceptualisations of purpose and classroom pedagogy.
Following this, this section addresses the nature of grammatical terminology. While this more psychologically- oriented discussion is also pertinent to the previous section, the discussions and debates are interconnected, and the points being made (e.g. in relation to the nature of grammatical terminology) have particular resonance for practical classroom application.