Grammar: defying definition beyond two millennia.

Abstract

No consensus has been reached regarding the definition of grammar since the term came into existence more than two millennia ago. The article illustrates how terminology has developed, changed and always presented problems from ancient times to the present. Problems have included both its definition and what to call its practitioners regardless of the definition of grammar. Consequently, grammar is a problem term when discussing it, reading about it, or teaching it. Definitions and approaches are presented and discussed, particularly the author's classroom use.

Grammar Definitions for Educators

In 2001, Ed Vavra posted his views on qualitative grammatical analysis to a professional listserve. This virtual forum served the Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar. (ATEG). Among the problems in conducting such studies was deciding what was meant by the term grammar. Vavra lamented, "... even in this group [the ATEG] there is little agreement on the definition of grammar. Are we talking usage or syntax?" Productive discussions of whether, what kind of, how grammar should be taught cannot occur without knowing speakers' and writers' definition of grammar.

In an earlier issue of this journal, (Hoffman, 2003) I related course-content conclusions resulting from instructor deliberations about course curriculum. The content under consideration was for a course on what elementary and secondary teachers needed to know about language. For reasons of scope, I had limited the focus of the article. The focus was what to teach teachers about grammar and what to teach teachers about teaching grammar.

It may sound superficial and obvious to state that I had wanted to insure that students knew what they were writing about. When students write without apparent understanding, the common explanations include either instructor failure, or student lack of ability or application. However, whenever the term grammar was part of a discussion, something particular happened. Nearly all students defended their grammar views vehemently, blithely assuming that anyone reading their work would share their respective definitions of it. This unconscious attitude, hardly limited to students, relates to the remarks by Vavra and by various authors cited in the following discussion.

A Persistent and Protracted Problem for Educators

To prevent (or more accurately reduce) such uninformed use of terminology, I require my students to identify each occurrence of "grammar" or "grammatical." Students have to identify both what they mean by the term as well as what they believe that their cited authors meant. I lower grades in assignments where students misidentify or fail to identify both terms' use. Despite discussing definitions in class, listing them in the syllabus, and on my course web-page, the task overwhelms many students. Students demonstrate their understanding by placing a number after the terms grammar and grammatical in their own writing and in cited text. The numbers which my students must place after the terms corresponded to Patrick Hartwell's assignments in his well-known 1985 article on grammar. Hartwell's article expanded upon an earlier 1954 article on the subject by W. Nelson Francis. While reviewing Francis for my own AEQ article, I noticed several other articles in a collection (Allen, 1964). John S. Kenyon (1948) discussed confusion among the terms philology, rhetoric and linguistics, a problem is his era. James B. Macmillan (1954) was concerned with people inadequately distinguishing informal from nonstandard English. Karl W. Dykema (1961) discussed grammar among other terms. The dates of these article show that those concerned with grammar and related terms have had concerns over confusion of terminology negatively impacting the classrooms of various eras. Unaddressed in my previous article was my learning, from Dykema's article, how long people have differed and disputed about grammar-related terminology.

Near the beginning of his article Dykema traces the term from the Greek verb 'write' or 'draw' graphein to the singular noun 'letter' gramma. The plural noun grammatika goes from 'letters' to 'alphabet' to 'rudiments of writing' to 'rudiments of learning.' "The adjective form grammatike with techne meant the art of knowing one's letters." (qtd. in Allen: 3) The combination led to Latin grammaticus which somehow gained an 'r,' ending up in English, spelled variously, including the modern form: grammar.

The earliest grammar from a pedagogical point of view is probably the Art of Grammar by Dionysius of Thrace around 100 B.C. In their introduction, Laimutis Valeika and Janina Buitkiene briefly listed some of his content and definitions. Following, I cite a few phrases, familiar to those who learned traditional grammar two millennia later:

   Dionysius Thrax (c. 100 BC) ... [wrote] the first ... comprehensive
   grammar of Greek ... standard ... for thirteen centuries. Thrax
   makes ... the sentence ... the upper limit of grammatical
   description, and the word ... the minimal unit.... The sentence
   is defined ... as "expressing a complete thought".... The noun
   was ... a person or a thing; the verb ... an activity or process
   performed or undergone; ... the pronoun ... substitutable for the
   noun....

Dykema (qtd in Allen: 9) discusses the development of the meanings of philology up until his time. The ancients variously meant "words ... as the means of argument ... the foundations of literature ... their forms and relations in discourse." Dykema added that, in 19th century France and Germany, it included "literary history, textual and literary criticism and linguistics." Dykema claims that the ancients were no more certain of such terms' meanings than we are today. He lists the names for related terms that appeared in Greek: "philologos, grammatikos, grammatistes, kritikos." His list for Latin is "philologus, grammaticus, litterator, criticus." Dykema's conclusion that confusion with grammar-related terms had existed throughout such terms' existence led to my writing this article. Dykema cites Suetonius' On Grammarians iv. I will give his citation from the Loeb Library, a more widely available source:

   The term grammaticus became prevalent through Greek influence,
   but at first such men were called litterati.... Cornelius
   Nepos ... explains ... [litterati] those who can speak or
   write on any subject ... should strictly be used of interpreters
   of the poets, whom the Greeks call grammatici.... Some, however,
   make a distinction between litteratus and litterator, as the
   Greeks do between grammaticus and grammatista, using the former
   of a master of his subject, the latter of one moderately
   proficient.

The following minus pronunciation guide and etymology is Encarta's online set of grammar definitions.

1. rules for language: the system of rules by which words are formed and put together to make sentences

2. particular set of language rules: the rules for speaking or writing a particular language, or a particular analysis of the rules of language

3. quality of language: the spoken or written form of language somebody uses, as related to accepted standards of correctness

4. grammar book: a book dealing with the grammar of a language

5. analytical system: a systematic treatment of the elementary principles of a subject and their interrelationships

Likewise, this is Merriam's online set.

1. a : the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence

b : a study of what is to be preferred and what avoided in inflection and syntax

2. a: the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language

b :a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language

3. a: a grammar textbook

b: speech or writing evaluated according to its conformity to grammatical rules

4. the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>

I have mentioned Francis' article which was the basis for Hartwell's article. I intend to contrast them to show the development in thinking about grammar between 1954 and 1985. Then I will contrast them to Dykema's 1961 definitions. These contrasts will be woven around a discussion of classroom applications of Hartwell's terminology

Francis divided the term grammar into three basic categories (which I paraphrase here):

1. The unconscious grammar which we use when we speak, which we learn unconsciously, and which we have no direct access to.

2. Grammar descriptions of any kind whether scientific and descriptive or traditional and prescriptive.

3. Usage, what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable i.e. linguistic etiquette.

Hartwell split Nelson's second category, reserving the number two for scientific descriptions and assigning number four to traditional, prescriptive, school, grammars. Hartwell introduced a fifth category, rhetorical grammar. This involves the teaching of mini-lessons in grammar, identifying and labeling structures and usages solely where it helps writing instruction. This is the main thrust of modern pedagogical grammar instruction, sometimes termed rhetorical grammar. Many authors facilitate or address instruction of grammar more directly associated with writing instruction. The very large number of authors of such grammars testifies to the growing consensus for rhetorical grammar. I will list contemporary authors of grammars with dates and titles of their works.

Epes and Southwell,      (2001)     Mastering Written English,
Kolln,                   (2002)     Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical
                                      Choices, Rhetorical,
Kischner and Wollin,     (2001)     Writers' Choices: Grammar to
                                      Improve Style,
Leist and Hoffman        (2000)     Grammatical Literacy,
Lester,                  (2000)     Grammar and Usage in the Classroom,
Morenberg and Sommers,   (2002)     The Writer's Options: Lessons in
                                      Style and Arrangement,
Williams,                (2002)     Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace

Hartwell's treatment deserves the accolades and distribution which it has received. Besides its other virtues, it strikes a reasonable balance between over and underdifferentiation. Unfortunately, one size does not fit all, so one's grammar labeling could not satisfy all grammar-labeling needs. Hartwell's five categories correspond to grammar use that elementary teachers and secondary English teachers are likely to find in their professional reading. However, many students seem unable to grasp that grammars one and five are not bodies of knowledge, consciously taught. Grammar one is taught unconsciously, and grammar five uses structure identification and usage mini-lessons to enhance writing instruction. However, a persistent tendency among students exists to treat the five grammars as choices on a menu, like flavors of ice-cream.

Also distinguishing grammars two and four is difficult for students without traditional grammar instruction, much less any modern-linguistic grammar exposure. I repeatedly assert that grammar two is not part of most elementary teachers' and secondary-English teachers' own training or teaching responsibility. I explain that grammar two is predominantly used, if at all, by foreign-language teachers or English as a Foreign Language teachers. (Grammar five may use grammar two when a structural, not notional, definition is used to label parts of speech or grammatical structures.) Nonetheless, many students--able to separate three and four from one and five--list two, with three and four, as classroom taught. Pedagogically, Hartwell's five grammar labels would have been more convenient in another form to visually distinguish properties of the five grammar labels:

A. Internal (Unconscious) Grammar            Hartwell's   One

B. Instructed Grammar: a Body of Knowledge
   1. Linguistic Grammar                         "        Two
   2. Good Grammar                               "        Three
   3. Traditional Grammar                        "        Four
C. Rhetorical Grammar (Methodology)              "        Five

However, presenting Hartwell in that manner now would create an additional step of mapping the article to the outline. It would likely cause more problems than solutions.

Another Set of Definitions for Educators to Consider

Returning to Dykema writing in 1961, he presented definitions quite similar to Francis and Hartwell. His definitions numbered four.

1. The unconsciously learned language patterns. This corresponds to both Francis' and Hartwell's grammar one.

2. The scientific description of language which corresponds to part of Francis' and all of Hartwell's number two.

3. An incomplete, prescriptive, pedagogical grammar. This corresponds to inadequate grammar two in Francis and to grammar four in Hartwell.

4. Grammar as remedy. This has no direct correspondence to Francis or Hartwell. Dykema explains it as a widespread belief. The belief is that an authoritative grammar exists somewhere, the memorization of which will eliminate people's difficulties with their language use.

The latter of Dykema's definitions sounds like the antithesis to Hartwell's grammar five. No limited doses of grammars two or four and three are devoted to a specific writing problem. When Dykema was writing, drill-and-kill exercises, and memorization of usage and grammar rules were still in fashion. The idea of a monolithic standard floating out in the ether, enshrined in reference works, has not disappeared. The remedy now is not repeated applications of grammar but repeated applications of models of good writing in literature. My own views on this development fall outside the scope of this article. Problems in the varied meaning of grammar are nowhere more evident than when I discuss the grammar of African American Vernacular English. Despite all the reading, lectures etc., some students have trouble believing that a nonstandard tongue can have a grammar. I continually have to remind and reinforce a notion. A grammar one, hence a possible grammar two, exists for any speech whether or not a grammar three or four ever emerges. I mention Scots which exists all over Scots' webpages, but I do not know whether there is any kind of official Scots' grammar. I have also seen, and saved to disk, a copy of a contrastive grammar between Bavarian German and High (Standard) German.

Nonetheless, for some students, the assertion that a grammar exists for a language or dialect is somewhat analogous to canonization. If a grammar exists, somehow the speech deserves to be taught independently. Speech with a grammar is a language. Consequently, I get bizarre statements such as "I still think that Standard English ought to be taught in classrooms." I ask the students "where in their readings or lecture notes is there any suggestion advocating the contrary?" They, of course, have no answer. This is because only one reason in their readings occurs for using any nonstandard speech in a language-arts classroom setting. That is to facilitate standard-English mastery by providing information regarding non-obvious equivalents. (Excluded here is the creative-writing issue where arguments exist for poetry and for play and novel dialogue etc. in one's own vernacular.) Recapitulation of Grammar Definitions' Impact on Education

1. The meaning of the word grammar has changed over time.

2. At no period of time has there been a consensus of what grammar means.

3. People have continually been arguing about it whether they agree with one another about what grammar means or not.

4. Deciding questions on whether and what grammar should be used in a classroom depends on shared definitions among participants discussing grammar.

5. Authorities of various sorts have tried to do what they can to improve discussions of grammar.

Conclusion

Disagreements exist over whether and/or how and/or when to teach grammar when participants in discussions agree on their respective definitions. It is a waste of everyone's time and energy when disagreements in grammar arguments take place because participants misunderstand one another's meanings. There has not been a consensus on the meaning of the term since it came into existence. Consequently, informed and responsible educators should be careful to do the following if they do not routinely do so already.

1. If and when using the term grammar, they should make clear in the venue, spoken or written, what they mean by grammar.

2. Before responding to others' use of the term, they should be sure that they know or learn what that speaker or writer means by grammar.

Works Cited

Allen, Harold Byron. Ed. Readings in Applied Linguistics. 2nd Ed. NY: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1964.

Dykema, Karl W. "Where our Grammar Comes from." College English, 22 (1961): 455-465. Rpt. in Allen

Epes, Mary, and Michael Southwell. Mastering Written English: The COMP-LAB Exercises. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, N J: Prentice-Hall, 2001.

Francis, W. Nelson. "Revolution in Grammar." Quarterly Journal of Speech, 40 (1954); 299-312. Rpt. in Allen "Grammar" Encarta World English Dictionary. [North American Edition] Microsoft Corp. 2004. <http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/grammar.html>

"Grammar" Merriam Webster Dictionary. Merriam Webster Inc. 2004 <http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=grammar &x=16&y=21>

Hartwell, Patrick. "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar." College English, 47 0985): 105-107. <http://www.english,wayne.edu/writing/hartwell2.html>

Hoffman, Melvin J. "Grammar for Teachers: Attitudes and Aptitudes" Academic Exchange Quarterly. 7:4 (Winter 2003): 199-203.

Kenyon, John S "Cultural Levels and Functional Varieties of English "College Composition and Communication, l0 (1948): 31-36. Rpt. in Allen

Kischner, Michael, and Edith Wollin. Writers' Choices: Grammar to Improve Style. Independence, KY: Heinle, 2001.

Kolln, Martha. Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects. 4th. Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2002

Leist, Susan M. and Melvin Hoffman. Grammatical Literacy. NY: iUniverse Press, 2000.

Lester, Mark. Grammar and Usage in the Classroom. 2nd.Ed. NY: Longman. 2000.

McMillan, James B. "Summary of Nineteenth Century Historical and Comparative Linguistics" College Composition and Communication 5 (1954); 140-149. Rpt. in Allen.

Morenberg, Max, and Jeff Sommers with Donald A. Daiker and Andrew Kerek. The Writer's Options: Lessons in Style and Arrangement. 7th Ed. NY: Addison Wesley Longman, 2002.

Suetonius Tranquillus, Caius. "De Grammaticis [On Grammarians]" Suetonius, 2 Vols. Ed. by J.C. Rolfe. The Loeb Classical Library. NY: MacMillan, 1914. II. 388-507. Scan. & Ed. by: J. S. Arkenberg. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/ suet-viribusrolfe.html#De%20Grammaticis> Internet History Sourcebooks Project. Gen. Ed. Paul Halsall 2000. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/>

Valeika, Laimutis and Janina Buitkiene. An Introductory Course in Theoretical English Grammar. Vilnius Pedagogical University Press, 2003. <http://www.vpu.lt/siusti/anglu_gramatika.doc>

Vavra, Ed. "Quantitative Research." Online Posting, 16, Feb. 2001. <[e-mail]>

Williams, Joseph M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. 7th Ed. NY: Longman, 2002.

Melvin J. Hoffman, Buffalo State University College, NY

Melvin J. Hoffman, PhD, is Professor of English, Buffalo State University College, NY