Grammar Models (and the reform thereof?)

I apologize for this being slightly behind the submission deadline--it owes to a series of events unimportant to the text.

Thus far into Weaver's text, I still have trouble getting a precise hold on my feelings, leaving me at the same point of uncertainty regarding my own opinions on this. I feel as if the most natural way to let these thoughts flow would be found in outlining the main points which I have extracted from Weaver and expounding upon them openly to a point of satisfaction. For the sake of organization, and in an attempt to better structure my 5 crucial ideas, I will list them first, broadly.

1. The current academic model employed to teach grammar is ineffective.
2. The current academic model employed to teach grammar revolves primarily around so-titled "traditional grammar."
3. The impotence of the current model of grammar instruction owes to the excessively rigid and often-arbitrary nature of traditional grammar.
4. The centration of grammar education around traditional grammar inhibits writing by creating prescriptive rules of writing.
5. "Positive grammar," or the instruction of grammar focused on broadly-audienced communication ("authentic" reading and writing), should be the focus of grammar instruction.


As I stated, I am still conflicted on some of the points that Weaver makes. I may be excessively skeptical on the sole basis of mistrusting dramatic shifts in academic paradigm (ie Learning new things is scary and hard to do.), but the the first two chapters of the text seem, at times, to only nod to the studies they cite, where I would prefer more development in these sections. Chapter 3 cited plenty of evidence, but the first two left something to be desired, in my opinion. Nonetheless, for the most part, I am inclined to agree with Weaver's proposed model of instruction. If not in terms of passing a standardized test (awful things, aren't they?), this approach would undoubtedly improve the cumulative level of communication among individuals... or at least add a pleasant dash of theatricality to one's words.

Most of us reached consensus in class in discussing the nature of what Weaver refers to as "traditional grammar-" often arbitrary, at times difficult to use, and not often present as a conscious process tied to learning. Indeed, grammar does seem to be a primarily subconscious procedure--from my own experience, this is how I learned to communicate. Having reflected on my personal experience with writing, I better understand what Weaver means when referring to the restrictive nature of grammar. A lot of hallmarks of what I consider my own personal style of communication are, in terms of traditional grammar, "incorrect." Nonetheless, because of the ability to communicate which I naturally developed, I have yet to be kicked out of the English language. Grammar, in the education context it presently exists in, serves at best as an instructional exercise in futility (as the text states, it simply doesn't translate into personal style consciously) and at worst as a source of discouragement for young individuals only beginning to develop their own personal form of communication.

The new means of grammar instruction which Weaver begins to develop in these chapters seems satisfactory in most regards, though obviously we will all need to explore this more before an informed opinion can be made. So far, I have felt drawn to Weaver's approach--in particular, the concept of "code-switching" mentioned on page 40 and developed in Chapter 14. The concept has not been given much space within the text yet, but the brief overview given indicates a point that I find crucial--perhaps the most crucial--in communication. I feel no allegiance to grammar, but "code-switching" is essential. Most people do this already--we call it a "filter" or refer to differences in how we speak to various people connected to us. No communication should be discouraged or deemed "wrong--" but there may emerge a point at which communication breaks down, without some unifying "codes" for broader communication. This is where SOME heightened degree of structure may be beneficial--simply to allow more fluid communication among groups. Teaching this independent of rigid grammar, however, may be difficult. Then again, we are still fairly early into the book. I look forward to Weaver expounding upon these ideas in future chapters, and seeing the structure of this mode of instruction develop.