What good is grammar?

Abstract

Unfortunately this criticism of grammar books and grammar teaching is occasionally justified. At times some texts and teachers do seem unduly devoted to promulgating fantastic distinctions between shall and will and to keeping whom alive by heroic efforts. If by grammar one means a multiplication of arbitrary pronouncements and faulty generalizations and an improper emphasis on the formal written language, then we surely should get rid of it at once. But actually the cure for these and many other kinds of misunderstanding about the nature of the language is not a giving up of grammar but simply the study of grammar. Grammar here, of course, means a body of generalizations about the way a language behaves based on the careful observation of innumerable instances. Certainly nobody can be harmed by a study of the facts, and conceivably one could profit from such activity. The tendency of the general public, however, is probably to see values in the study of grammar that cannot be legitimately claimed for it. Perhaps the reasoning is as follows. Teachers, nurses, doctors, and relatives point out how unpleasant things may be good for us. Grammar proved unpleasant for me in school. Therefore grammar is good for me. Though such a person will readily proclaim he knows nothing about grammar, he does have a naive faith that an acquaintance with it might have netted him a good prose style, money in the bank, a longer car, and a girl something like Marilyn Monroe in his arms. He is determined that his children are going to have pure unadulterated grammar whether they like it or not, and he is pretty sure they aren't going to like it.