| There was a time, way back in the murky past, | | | | wasn't we Billy?' |
| when understanding English Grammar was considered | | | | The police officer, my friend and my co-worker |
| to be one of the fundamentals taught at schools in | | | | would all understand me. They would get the |
| the English speaking world. For some reason, this has | | | | message I intended to convey. Does this mean that |
| changed over the past few decades and a more | | | | understanding English Grammar is unnecessary? This |
| holistic approach to literacy instruction has been | | | | would be the case if it were only the meaning of our |
| advocated. However, even highly intelligent students | | | | communications that were important. However, this is |
| now seem to struggle when it comes to the | | | | clearly not the case. Successful communication |
| conventions of writing in English. Clearly, there are | | | | between two people involves not only the sender of |
| some things that just don't automatically happen via | | | | the message, but also the receiver of the message. |
| exposure to language and texts. There are still some | | | | And the perception formed by the receiver of the |
| basic elements of language learning, including those | | | | message can be vitally important. This perception will |
| pesky Grammar rules, which must be actively taught. | | | | be influenced by the manner in which the message is |
| In fact, it is somewhat misleading to refer to English | | | | sent. If the conventions of Grammar are followed, |
| Grammar rules as 'rules'. They are not rules in the | | | | the message may well be received more favourably |
| same way that we have rules of cricket, for | | | | since both the sender and receiver of the message |
| instance. If we wanted to know about the rules of | | | | are using the same system for communicating. |
| cricket, we would simply consult the official Cricket | | | | Consider the case when the communication is not |
| Rule Book. However, we cannot do something similar | | | | made verbally, but in writing. Writing is a far more |
| if we want to know about English Grammar rules. | | | | formal medium. The expectation that goes along with |
| There is no official English Grammar Guide that | | | | this is that English Grammar rules will be followed |
| contains all the laws of the language. These rules are | | | | more closely in writing than in speaking. There is no |
| not so much 'rules' as they are 'conventions', agreed | | | | doubt that if my written statement, 'I seen the man |
| upon quite informally over time by the majority of | | | | what robbed the place!' was distributed to a jury, |
| those who use the language. | | | | then my credibility would be somewhat reduced. |
| So if they are not really rules at all, then why do we | | | | The way language is used does matter. English |
| need to follow them? It is not mandatory to follow | | | | Grammar rules may not be rules per se, but we are |
| conventions. People are allowed to differ from the | | | | still bound by them. The effective communication of |
| norm. The supposed English Grammar rules are not | | | | our intended meaning and the perception of our |
| laws! I will not go to jail if I tell the police, 'I seen the | | | | message by those that receive it depend upon |
| man what robbed the place!' I will not have to face | | | | communicators 'playing' by the rules. There are times |
| an officious magistrate if I am overheard telling a | | | | that our communications need to appear professional |
| friend, 'There ain't nothing I can do about it.' And, | | | | and credible. This is why understanding English |
| assuming I was not supposed to be at work all | | | | Grammar should be reinstated as a fundamental |
| weekend, I will not be fired if I tell a co-worker, 'Me | | | | focus of our study of language at school. |
| and Billy was just down at the pub on the weekend, | | | | |