I Did Learned The Good English

I have started spanish classes again, and once again was reminded of the inadequacy of my english education. I mean, I really should know what "preterite" means (and before I get lots of "useful" lessons, I can find out what it means in a dictionary -- the point is I should have known when I was a kid, and that knowledge should now be automatic). It mostly annoys me because it makes it more difficult to learn another language, but there are more important reasons to teach children the rules of english.

I have little patience for people who argue that children shouldn't be taught grammar; the argument normally being that it puts a straitjacket on the language and stops it evolving. It's important to know the rules of the language to communicate effectively in the same way that it is important to know the rules of mathematics to perform addition.

It's also important to know the rules so you know when to break them. Breaking the rules of grammar because you don't know them normally makes you sound like an idiot, whereas breaking a rule on purpose to achieve a specific end is often very effective. Let me give you an example...

Perhaps the most commonly used example of bad grammar is "to boldly go where no man has gone before", citation not needed. We're then told not to split the infinitive -- which isn't a lot of use because my generation wasn't taught what an infinitive is. Anyway, my point is that in this case the rules of grammar were deliberately broken for a specific reason -- to emphasise the quality of boldness. The important point in the tagline is not that the Enterprise went somewhere, nor even that it went where no-one had gone before, but that it did so in a boldly.

Now imagine if the rules of grammar had been broken simply because the writer didn't know them: "To boldly go where no man has went before." Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

Knowing the rules of english doesn't put a straitjacket on the natural evolution of the language -- nothing can change the fact that the language will evolve. Languages evolve through popular fiction, notable people, events and places, new metaphors, new products and concepts, and so on. It doesn't evolve through blatant ignorance.

Which brings me neatly to what I suspect is the real reason behind the push for literary ignorance. Most of the people I've heard making the argument against teaching kids correct english are from reasonably privileged backgrounds, having gone to private or selective schools. They learnt correct english and it's likely their children will too. The "new, free english" policy is for the uneducated plebians and is probably supported with one intent in mind -- keep them out of university and out of good professional jobs, reducing the competition for the people who went to the "right" schools.

Even if the high school system is such that people don't need to know good grammar to do well in the HSC, once they get to university they're going to have to write essays and answer test questions and lots of other things that require using correct grammar, and if they can't do it they have to either learn fast or fail the degree.

Posted by JEQP.